Caesar Marches on Rome - Historia Civilis Reaction
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2025
- See the original here - • Caesar Marches on Rome...
See "Caesar Crosses the Rubicon" here - • Caesar Crosses the Rub...
Support VTH on patreon: / vth
See my new channel Stories of the Great War here - / @storiesofthegreatwar
VTH Gaming - / thehistoryguy
VTH Extra - / @vthextra
Follow me on instagram here - / vloggingthroughhistory
Follow VTH on Facebook here - www.facebook.c...
#history #reaction
The nice thing about Chris reacting to these videos is that we don't have to wait 6-10 months before we get another HC video.
I thought his name was Sam Nixon?
@@theinsanepumpkincarver VTH or HC?
@theinsanepumpkincarver 😂 I had forgot about that 😂
Man do you all remember when he published a video monthly?
He started reacting to HC videos over 2 years ago - the Ceasar series, then stopped all of a sudden.
Historia Civilis: “the rule of law was dead.”
The Brothers Gracchi: “are we a joke to you?
Loving the Historia Civilis reactions! It would be a great achievement to make it to the Ides! Amazing stuff Chris.
I agree 💯%
Historia Civilis is the best Historical channel on this site
@@Jones25ful nah epic tv history
@@henryhill1231 not in every point
@@youthberktempest in general
I wouldn't say giving Labienus a lot of credit is a sign of bias against Caesar - even Caesar himself in "De Bello Gallico" gives him huge credit all of the time, and that book is basically pro-Caesar propaganda.
Oh, I don't think that particular part was a sign of bias either. It was pretty much everything else.
@@VloggingThroughHistory I don't believe that. The moment you said HC has an anti Caesar bias was when it was stated that Labienus should be credited half of what Caesar 'accomplished'.
@@corneliaaurelli1603 well yeah because he shouldn’t. This was just another drop in a vast sea of biases HC has shown against Caesar. It’s fine, everyone has biases, but to say that Caesar owes half of his accomplishments (in Gaul) to him is really dishonnest. And listen I am not diminishing Labienus's contribution, but just as Anthony was no Labienus, Labienus was no Caesar.
@Shayrin2 Labienus DID deserve those accomplishments in Gaul. He spent more time campaigning and pacifying Gaul than Caesar did. There were a lot of times when Labienus secured Gaul for Caesar.
I wouldn't call it anti- Caesar bias, but a possible overcorrection. Most sources are heavily pro caesar, HC surely knows it and trying to recount the story in a narrative interesting way, I feel like he tried to mitigate the bias of the sources, but overcorrected.
I feel like you didn’t give much credence to Labienus’s defection to the Senate. Caesar had other skilled lieutenants yes, like Mark Antony, Publius Ventidius, Lepidus, but not ONE of them could hold a candle to Labienus.
Imagine if Lincoln had replaced Grant with Meade as overall General-in-chief of the Army in the civil war. Was George Gordon Meade a fantastic general? Absolutely. Was he a Ulysses Grant? No.
Caesar himself acknowledged it. Unlike Pompey and Scipio and Cato and so many others, he knew that Labienus was his equal.
Chris this is correct Labienus was a god dam great
Yeah I feel like Chris really discredited Labienus here. There was a reason that he was Caesar's #2. Caesar was good but if something needed delegating and he needed a guy he could trust to handle anything, it was Labienus.
I had the same reaction, I didn't really think Historia Civilis was biased here. I didn't think they were biased in the previous videos either.
@@meisteckhartcome on bro, he clearly has a bias
@@svenrio8521 based on what? That he acknowledged he would be upset in Labienus’ position as well? Imagine you’re Labienus. You’re a trusted lieutenant and you’re taking care of most of the legions in northern Gaul. Caesar decides to invade Rome. He essentially just brought you along for the ride unless you clearly declare for republicans. Labienus was Caesar’s friend and trusted ally. Labienus’ felt betrayed and it is entirely understandable why. I’m not sure how that’s based against Caesar. I think most popular media has been biased towards Caesar. If that’s what most people know, balance seems biased against him. The reality is, though, that Caesar broke the law. Maybe that law was stupid or wrong or whatever you think, but he broke the law. He then fought to keep himself from being held accountable and in the end, became dictator to protect his own position and essentially ended the Roman republic. I get his reasons, but Caesar was a despot. Recognizing that is not biased, it’s reality. Caesar was talented. Caesar was cunning. Caesar was powerful and ambitious. Not sure how good or justified he was, but history is written by the victors.
12:50 you're confusing the "war-hawks" with the Cesaerian faction. the war hawks were the conservatives who kept nagging Pompie about confronting Caesar with military force.
He's not confusing it, I think he knows what he meant, just that Pompey didn't need the conservatives war hawks as justification to escalate the conflict, but his own self interest was enough.
@@masterost1994 I am not sure about that, as he clearly talks about those war-hawks having been "for Caesar anyway". I think the confusion comes from the animation showing squares from the site of the senate acting up that was used to represent the Caesarians in the prvious episode.
One reason why Caesar pardoned his opponents was to differentiate himself from the participants of the last Civil War, especially Sula.
It is important to remember that Caesar was a teenager during the last Civil War and was almost killed by Sula's proscription list (due to being a nephew of Marius, Sula's rival) and his hole carreer as a politician was based on being an alternative to Sula's system.
On Labienus betrayal, I heard a theory that he was always an ally to Pompey and was only supporting Caesar when both Triumvarates were on good terms. That would explain Labienus stubbornness to accept Caesar's clemency and eventually die in the battle of Munda, even after it was clear that the conservatives lost the Civil War.
Just knew you couldn’t stay away! Continue this all the way to Actium, it’ll be amazing! Fun fact, This video was YEARS in the making because in a previous video that HC made long before this, he explicitly said that one day, he’d make a whole video deconstructing the phrase “Caesar Marches on Rome”.
This is also the first instance we see of Domitius Ahenobarbus becoming Caesar’s Saturday Morning cartoon villain, ala Team Rocket.
“Ahenobarbus is blasting off again!” *sparkle*
Thank you so much for coming back to Historia Civilis, and 2 days in a row even! I'll be eagerly awaiting the next installment when you feel like doing it!
Hi Chris, thank you for returning to this series. I think you'll really enjoy the rest of it and you offer great additional insights to add to HC's excellent work.
Can't wait for more of this series. My personal favorite is "the longest year in human history"
I am waiting for the Master Plan part of the New Political Order
Isn't that part of HC's new 19th century series?
@@dyutimandas9772 yes
@@dyutimandas9772no
AVE! I will take all the Historia Civilis you give. I watched every single one of his videos and it really was what inspired my to go even deeper with classical antiquity history.
Your content and character helped me a lot through some extremely tough times during quarantine. I’ll never forget that, thank you.
Yes, but did Labienus ask Tribune Aquila for permission to defect first?
Please continue this series Chris! It's so awesome
HC reactions are great! One of the reasons why I subbed all that while back.
Please do more of these!
YES CHRIS KEEP THE CAESAR VIDEOS COMING!
Historia civilis is presenting story as it develops… this channel presents the story with the outcome in mind. This is why historia civilis videos are so good.
You put it into perfect words I was arguing with my friend about who was right in this video and you put it better than I ever could
The reason they were so worried about Caesar matching on Rome was because the last time this happened (which was still in living memory) was under Sulla. Sulla killed a lot of senators and knights and redistributed their wealth to his friends and allies. The Senate would do ANYTHING to prevent something like that happening again.
This is the source of a lot of their fear and overreactions.
Yeah, and ironically their actions lead to it happening again, but not by Caesar. His grandnephew/adopted son does it.
@@VloggingThroughHistoryidk why you are hardcore defending an egomaniac who slaughtered thousands of Gauls and Roman’s for his own ambitions. I think history civilis has less of a bias than your ‘pro Caesar’ bias
I'm not hardcore defending anyone.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Caesar barely escaped Sulla. Instead of killing Caesar he was made a flamen which was a kind of priest which wasn't allowed to touch weapons or see the dead thus killing his political career. Many think he spared him because Sulla's first wife may have been Caesar's aunt.
@@Another_Caesar What on earth are you on about bro?
Historia Civilis is easily one of top 3 history channels out there, please do more!
I don’t think he was biased against caesar. He was just giving credit where credit is due to Labienus who caesar saw as his equal. He didn’t even see Pompey necessarily as good of an an equal as Labienus
Cato to Pompey: I have a cunning plan sir!
I hate Cato so much at times. He is everything I despise about politicians times 10
I read that in Baldricks voice
Cato’s intransigence and unwillingness to compromise or come to a deal was one of the nails to the coffin that the Republic was buried in and you can take that to the bank.
Is it as cunning as a fox who as just been made professor of cunning at Oxford University??
Ceaser: Threatens to murder public servant and steals Rome’s money
Chris: “There was illegality on both sides”
One step closer to the Ides of March!!
What's funny is, the Senate absolutely INSISTED on having a conflict with Caesar, but was completely and utterly unprepared for war with Caesar...
glad you're doing more historia civilis, two of my favorite history channels in one video is just🧑🍳💋
I love these videos! It is amazing how Historia Civilis can do so much with just different coloured squares! But I learned so many details about this period of Roman History that I didn't know before by watching his videos.
Yes!!! I'm so happy to rewatch this series with Chris.
These reaction videos are valuable because for instance Historia Civilis' series on late Republican Rome is one of the best history playlists on TH-cam but Chris's counterpoints and rebuttals show that historical discourse is basically narrative that can be spun in a thousand different ways, and that even the teachers and academics we admire most cannot be free of bias or personal opinion
I appreciate you giving some pushback in regards to Caesar. That said, I do think that by the end Historians Civilis saying “the rule of law was dead,” was meant to apply to the rule of law in general, and he wasn’t singling out Caesar there.
Labienus was pretty much an equal to Caesar on the battlefield in command skill, he's the reason Gaul was a success. Should check out the videos on Gaul privately if not with a reaction video.
Labienus was, without doubt, the greatest subaltern Caesar had during the bello gallico. However, it is also fair to point out that he was great when it came to tactical knowledge, while his strategic capabilities are mostly obscure. The harsh reality is that the only way he could have risen to hold independent command, would have been under Caesar, a path he decided to reject in favor of those who mocked and despised him for his lower class upbringing
@@crespo9547 He just clearly saw what caeser was about to do and wanted no part in overthrowing the republic and starting a civil war.
Would be an interesting universe where they stayed together and the civil war ended way faster.
@@streetguru9350 the optimates started the Civil War, not caesar
@@Willy_Wacker_42069how dare they try to hold Caesar accountable for his wildly criminal first term as presi- *cough* consul?
@@streetguru9350He was competent but I don’t see how he was an equal when Caesar defeated him in the Civil War.
Just gotta say I love the content. Keep up the good work!
Oh, do you spoil us, and especially me, as I am binging your content as of late, so god help my wee eyes in the earlier hours!
Make sure you get your rest!
06:50 "Why would he?" If you're deciding to go rogue it's always a smart idea to inform your allies so that they can prepare a response instead of making sure they're caught with their pants down. So they can at least prepare a response to when their local leaders inquire on the situation and you can form a plan how to deal with uprising or resistance that might come with the news. That's why. Or, in case you suspect the guy to not be too happy, maybe have someone close by to ... take care of matters if things go downhill.
Hello VTH, as a Roman history lover it makes me really happy to see that you're doing more videos about Rome. Both the Republican and Imperial eras had so many interesting stories and characters.
Haven't watched this video through yet, but just want to comment on your comment about Historia Civilis' bias against Caesar around 8:00. I do not see it as a true anti-Caesar bias from their side. This is typical in most of Historia Civilis' videos, and something I kinda like about them. They tend to pick a 'point-of-view' character, acknowledging other sides, but do take a bias in favour of that point-of-view character, which is what happens with Labienus at this point. They fully take Caesar's point of view on some subjects, Pompeii on others, Cato, Crassus and so on. In this segment, he does specifically mention that he is talking about how Labienus perceives the situation up in Gaul, which is a fair point to make as it informs the actions taken later by Labienus
My issue with his bias is that he is stating opinions and interpretations as facts and those interpretations and opinions all give th benefit of the doubt to Caesar's opponents while assuming the worst when it comes to Caesar.
@@VloggingThroughHistory That is true, and I do recognize that bias. I have never truly seen that as an anti-Caesar bias considering a lot of his other videos and how many of them praise Caesar while diminishing other people. I've always seen it as part of his narrative method, as it helps make the storyline flow better with 'bad guys' and 'good guys', but I do agree, it can be a bad thing if people are unable to see through the biased positions he takes in the videos
I think he actually tells most of the story from cicero's prespective.
@@VloggingThroughHistory I would suggest that's only partially accurate. I agree there is an anti-Caesar bias ... and you were really strong as usual about saying that everyone has a bias, so I'm not having a fight here. My impression though is that you have a pro-Caesar bias as well, and I don't think it's fair to say HC assumed the worst of Ceasar and gave his opponents the benefit of the doubt. I think it's much closer than that, though he does more often take the anti-Caesar side than I'm comfortable with. FWIW I also agree with Croccifixo. I'm not saying you should go through all of his videos or anything, and you're only commenting on the one video here, but as a whole the rome series on his channel is pretty balanced in my view. I.e. how he mentions multiple times that Pompeii may have not been the sharpest tool in the shed. The one person he really seems to be biased towards in being a clear Cicero fanboi. Just my .02.
27:15 *Caesar is in the senate surrounded by thugs intimating all of the senators in the room*
VTH: they’re not saying anything must mean they approve
This is a great series to react to. Keep going!
Love the Historia Civilis Reactions!
Guys, please don't get too excited choosing sides for or against Ceasar. Let's appreciate the range of interpretations instead of fighting for one supreme opinion.
I would contend that you either have to question Caesar's intention or competence: He clearly crossed a red line for a lot of people. And maybe he only saw it as a minor escalation himself and didn't expect the reaction he got. However, that would mean that he didn't understand other people would see it as crossing a major line. And a competent strategist and statesman ought to understand what others would consider a major escalation. Also: regardless of whether he was obligated to consult Labienus, if consulting him would have kept him from switching sides that would have likely been the better way of handling it.
Nice to re-watch Historia Civilis with VTH commentary.
2:35 despite the fame amd experience of the 13th I would have guessed that Caesar meant to keep the 10th legion with him. Caesar and the 10th where ride or die since the start of the Gallic Wars, and after his (kinda cultish, the manipulation tactics are kind of blatant ) speech before the battle with Ariovistus I think it would have been majorly hypocritical for him to leave the 10th to one other commander. Unless He wasn't that serious into leaving his legions, which it was likely the case. By the end of the Gallic Wars, Ceasar's Legions had been halved, had been dragged into hellish battles in which they often had only victory or death as options. A Gallic victory at Alesia would have meant death, torture, rape and slavery for all the legionaries and their families (which often marched with them and where employed into a legion's logistic). Caesar put them in that situation and brought them out of it as victorious, glorified, heroes of Rome. And they owed their retirement to Him. At that point changing a legatus would mean nothing, Caesar would really stay the one in charge. He knew that, maybe even Cato knew that. Unless he was truly rendered powerless as a private citizen
The Historia Civilis Reactions are here Finallyyyyyy
Yeah it’s completely fair to say that Historia Civilis is pretty critical of Caesar, but IMO it’s good to have that perspective at least since a lot of popular history communication over-emphasizes Caesar. Not to say either is more right or wrong, but it’s interesting to compare
Agree 100% present different perspectives, let people decide for themselves.
9:25 That is very possible, especially in the age of limited communication and the fact as you mentioned earlier regarding just how far North he was, it is rather likely that he only had superficial knowledge of what was happening. It gets to an interesting question though, regarding both morality and treason/rebellion. At what point is such justified and would knowledge of the petty back and forth have swayed Labienus' opinion, or would he be of a mind to say "treason is treason".
Never in the course of history has a square had so much personality...
Hail 🟥
Ave, True to 🟥
@@Willy_Wacker_42069 I didn't know I was transported to the Mojave in 2281
Great reaction as usual! For a deeper look into specific legions formation and deeds. The channel Historia militum has some great videos.
When I watched the original video, I didn't interpret it as anti-Caesar bias, I saw it as him speculating on Labienus' emotions and motivations for what he chose to do in order to tell a better story, but I definitely understand why you saw it that way!
His ides of march video is fantastic. Can’t wait til you get to it one day
The Battle of Munda is my personal favourite HC video. Something about the way he represents Caesar having to fight his friend and equal.
Love the Roman history content! Thanks for all you do!
I love the Historia Civilis reactions!
Speaking of HBO's Rome, considering you're doing reactions to History Buffs maybe there could be one to their Rome video? Just saying it would be great to hear your reaction to it.
I feel you tried to play devils advocate a tiny bit too hard in this one, to the point of misinterpreting things. When he mentions the warhawks, I always assumed he was speaking of the Senators who had done things like, present Pompey with a sword and telling him to march against Caesar. Which is we are to believe historical sources, he answered “if there is no alternative” which to me sounds like him being walked into open military conflict by others.
I also think you might have misinterpreted the bit on labienus to be anti-Caesar. While there were in fact other decent commanders, labienus by all accounts was the only equal to Caesar, of which he himself said.
Other than those small gripes, I hope you do lots more of his videos. These reactions have been excellent.
I don't think caesar ever said that and it is not even true, he was a good general, but not at the level of caesar, in fact he lost multiple times vs him
I disagree there is some anti caesar bias in each part and while labienus was a good general he was definitely not on caesars or pompey s level
@@afriendlycadian9857 thought and said the same thing. Labienus was good but never on Caesar’s level
@@Roman_History_fan It should be noted that his "losses" were not him in overall command, and that during several of those engagements the soldiers commanded by Labienus did outperform their Cesarean opponents. This however doesn't really prove anything. Given that generally these were not "fair" fights either. By the time the Pompeian faction had started to put those... less political appointments in charge, they had suffered massive losses and set backs. Spain had fallen, Pompey was dead, and their strength had bled away.
I can't find where I had read about Caesars admiration for Labienus so I will concede that I may have been incorrect on him himself saying he was his equal, or that if he said it, it had been more a gesture of good will and friendship.
@@BestCatFriend 1) he was though one of the main generals so it was his losses like it was other ones losses
2) at Pharsalus he was defeated by a huge Caesarean strategy (4th line of infantry behind the cavalry). Caesar also in the next fights was also outnumbered so he was the one with the badder odds, even Juba of Numidia helped the Pompeians. Idk what you mean Caesar had defeated a huge army of veterans with experienced generals in the west (spain), at Pharsalus he was defeated again (Pompey and Labienus)
3) Caesar sure thought good of Labienus, but he was never his equal. At Ruspina Labienus surrounded Caesar (Caesar had only infantry) with only cavalry and Caesar ordered every 2nd cohort to turn around and push. It was a success. The Pompeians were routed and then they followed the Caesareans and were routed again. It is said that it was a defeat for Caesar, altough being surrounded by only cavalry and still manage to inflict severe damage and go away is a great accomplishment.
4) Caesar and Labienus fought both personally at Munda. Labienus was killed and Caesar ordered him to be buried. Caesar would have surely and that is my opinion pardoned him, if he had gotten the chance
We can understand Caesar's point of view to an extent, but at the end of the day he was the one who chose to march an army on Rome. When he crossed the Rubicon, he must have known that what he was doing was treason. Caesar may have been in an impossible position, but it was largely one of his own making: his ruthless ambition and disregard for the law is a large part of what had made him so many enemies in the first place. His consulship had been marked with abuse of power: he frequently disregarded vetoes and used the mob to intimidate his enemies. His 5-year commands over multiple provinces were blatantly unconstitutional. In my opinion, we shouldn't feel too sorry for him that his ruthless pursuit of power ended up backing him into a corner.
Legitimacy isnt in question as its been established that what you said is true from a certain point of view. But id argue and will die on this hill that The senate was just as bad as Ceasar was if not worse, spurred on by catos hypocrisy
And yet, others used him for it (namely Pompey) and then they were ready to throw him under the bus.
The legitimacy of this isnt debatable because what you said is true from a certain POV, but you gotta remember this is the romans we are talking about... a walking oxymoron oozing with hypocrisy, ive had the luxury of going in depth with romes culture and they are pretty backwards even for the time in some cases, the senate is just as bad if not worse than ceasar especially with catos hateful rhetoric which seems to stem from ceasar having relations with catos neice
@@oceanplanet8160welcome to politics
I don’t anyone feels sorry for Caesar lol unless your Octavian
IVE BEEN WAITING FOR THE HISTORIA CIVILIS REACTIONS TO RETURN
4:10 Yep lmao, you're not the first to notice HC's subtle bias
Omg another reaction on Caesar by HC so soon?!... Thank you sir... Thank you
That passionate Laebinus hate is weeeeeeeird haha
For Caesar being merciful to those who fought him, it was definitely a calculated move. Not all that long before the forming of the First Triumvirate, there was the march on Rome by Sulla. Caesar himself needed to flee Rome for a bit because of it. Sulla issued proscriptions, which basically said 'here's a list, you can kill them and get a cut of their stuff.'
Caesar didn't want to be seen as another Sulla, so he showed mercy to those who faced him to give a deliberate contrast. A lot of Rome's elder statesmen were still alive from the days of Sulla.
When you read Cisero's letters it's clear at least he, Cisero, is privately expressing a lot of the opinions of Caesar that HC is sharing - a tyrant that acted only for his own benefit by manipulation and cruelty. I don't know if he had Caesar pegged or not, but Cisero seemed to really deeply understand the political minds of his time. Cisero seems genuinely surprised when Caesar met him warmly after the civil war. I think Caesar both knew the tactical and optical benefit of sparing the senators, relished in the glorified image he was given while also imagining it all was for the benefit of Rome.
I'd highly reccomend Montemayer. He has only done a few but the detail is impressive - especially regarding Midway and Nagumo's dilemma.
20:41 I think what HC is getting at is that Domitian realized the situation had changed from when he first marched north.
I've watched the original video some time ago, its great to rewatch this again with a fresh set of eyes. Its truly amazing how history repeats itself as the parallels of some of these things are apparent in today's time. Politics, in whichever time you pick, remains as flexible as it could be to the people who understand how to play it. In the end, laws are man made, and can be broken by man's hands. This civil war is just proof of that. Thanks VTH! Looking forward to your reactions on on more Historia Civilis. I think you'll like his video concerning Charles I of England as well.
Here's to more late nights lol!
Van from the Philippines.
Labienus my beloved
I have been wanting to see your reaction to how he handles Agrippa, I like his take
More Historia Civilis please🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
I suggest you watch "The Year Without a Summer (1816 to 1824)" from Historia Civilius as it follows on from the congress of Vienna that you seemed to enjoy
I feel like you're overestimating the capability of Caesar's commanders quite a bit. They lacked a ton of acumen and initiative that characterised Caesar himself, and they had many failures whether in Gaul or afterwards. What made Labianus unique was that he really was the only competent one who knew exactled what Caesar wanted and how to accomplish it. That's why Caesar relied on him so much, and it's not an understatement to say that a good part of the credit for Gaul should go to him.
Forgot to add a comment for engagement
Lunch break crew reporting for duty
I’d add that in terms of bias it’s more “pro Cicero” than “anti Caesar” and this is an episode of a series and an amount has been said in favor to Caesar during Gaul (I believe you’ve seen that series but it’s been sone time) where he does still cast doubt on Caesar’s accounts of things such as numbers where he explains why he doubts them. I think when you watch them in succession you get the full view of why he has that bias. Not necessarily share it but see it less as “anti Caesar” bias and more of “pro republic” or “pro Cicero” bias.
Hey. Chris, I appreciate you reacting to Historia Civilis' videos on Caesar as they're pretty cool and entertaining.
I'd just like to point that some of that anti-Caesar bias you perceive from the videos comed after HC had previously covered Caesar in a bunch of videos starting from his rise to power where he's already gotten a lot of credit.
Also, Labenius - like many of the prominent military leaders at that time - did have some experience in politics. He wad aldo Cesar's best lieutenant - and he would give Caesar one of his hardest battles in their final confrontation.
Regarding your perception of bias: Historia Civilis has said that Caesar's one of his favorites and especially in the videos that are more battle oriented, you see that on full display where he praises Caesar's patience, etc.
I would say that HC applies certain modern moral standards at times or possibly it's more of a "hypocrisy of both makes both bad" mindset. So things you'd excuse Caesar for doing because it's just the reality of the politics of the day he's taking the perspective of "two wrongs don't make a right" and so doesn't give Caesar any leeway
One bias worth noting: he has a very high opinion of Labienus. He doesn't discount Caesar's accomplishments through Labienus but he savages Marc Antony with comparison to Labienus every time Antony gets in trouble.
I suggest doing a "TH-cam History Channels" Tier list. And it can even become a yearly tradition. Maybe the tiers can be S A B (no lower tiers because i believe there's no bad history channels, they're doing their best) and Notable mentions for new channels you discovered recently! I think many people including myself view you as THE history channels hub in youtube and you ranking history channels and maybe giving the best history channel of this year an award would be nice.
you can choose the factors that determine the best channels yourself but please don't forget the frequency of the videos. My suggestions for the factors: Information, originality, humor, frequency of videos and bias
you can even rank channels based on categories like roman history channels, medieval history channels etc
sorry for my English. Your fan from Tunisia!
Their trial of Charles I is awesome, but their series in Caesar is damn near perfection
Agree with those mentioning Sulla. He was brutal and I do believe Caesar admired Marius. But you are correct about the "little bit of both" comment. If acting high minded and gracious accomplishes both his personal goals and the that which benefits the Republic, who acres what the motivation was? Caesar was ambitious AND loved the Republic.
I will keep suggesting the Crassus battle of Carrhae! a big Rome fan
i recommend you react to his battle tactics videos, especially the roman ones, very interesting.
MORE HISTORIA CIVILIS!!! LETS GO!!
Your complete dismissal of Labenius is what you get for skipping most of this series. As HC states, when Caesar needed to play statesman, he left Labenius in charge of the legions. Yet when Caesar went back to Cisalpine Gaul for the winter, who was left in charge of governing Gaul? Labeinus. And going by how much of an absolute disaster Marc Anthony would prove to be, yes Labeinus was irreplaceable.
Not a complete dismissal, just not willing to give him such a lion's share of the credit the way HC does.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Why shouldn't Labienus receive a lot of credit for the Gallic wars? There doesn't seem to be a lot of reasoning behind this other than "I really like Julius Caesar", which comes across as approaching the subject as a fanboy more than anything.
Chris, please please please watch all of the videos from Historia Civilis about ancient Rome
You say HC has an anti caesar bias, but how do you know you don't simply have a pro caesar/anti pompey bias? Also, why do you disagree with the war hawks leading pompey into this? Last episode you saw pompey willing to compromise, only for cato (a war hawk) to ruin the negotiations.
The Roman civil war and all civil wars prove imo that showing respect for and willing to work with political opposition is the most important trait of any leader at any level.
Most of Caesar's legions were understrength after the Gallic Campaign due to the obvious campaigning. 1500-2500 men were pretty common. Most of the time forward Caesar will be outnumbered, but he'll make up for it in overall experience compared to most legions under Pompey and his allies. In the upcoming years (or decades I suppose) some legions will combine and be known as "twins" due to them having to combine to make a full legion, at least in theory. As well as being disbanded and raised again.
How fun would it be to have a debate on whether Caesar was beneficial or detrimental to Rome between VTH and HC? I would love to listen to that.
Hey VTH, you should really do a reaction to the Gracchi Brothers by Extra History. It provides good background to how Roman politics got this broken in the first place.
If your ever looking to react to a what if scenario you should react to invicta's What if Julius Caesar Was Not Assassinated. It's pretty long coming to about an hour long but it's pretty interesting
Yes! I was hoping you'd continue this!
I find it so weird imagining ruling a huge empire in a world where information moves at the speed of a horse or ship.
... in a best case when you can spare a ship and there's a route safe enough that a horse rider has a good chance to send the message home....
Considering what we know Antony got up to in Rome while Caesar was away, it's hard to imagine Labienus being a worse choice than him.
Been waiting a long time for this
Thank you for the video! The next one would be a wild journey. Can't wait!
Also to be honest I appreciate HC's slightly biased view in favor of the legal system and established rules of Rome. They are one of Rome's greatest invention and it's kinda sad to see Caesar (and the other side too but Caesar argubaly did more damage to them) tremple over the system. I feel like VTH is leaning to a more realism perspective. Both are interesting and valid stances imo.
My issue with his views expressed here is that he isn't biased in favor of the legal system and established rules of Rome. He's perfectly willing to excuse violation of those things on one side, while calling Caesar out for doing it.
@@VloggingThroughHistory I don't think that's the case at all. Caesar kicked off this whole mess by committing numerous crimes during his consulship like assaulting other officials and forcing legislation over the vetos of his co-consul.
At this point, the Senate is fighting fire with fire, and I think it's disingenuous to say both sides are wrong when Caesar's authoritarianism and ambition were the instigating and sustaining factors in this crisis. Had Caesar submitted himself to the legal system and taken accountability for his crimes, perhaps civil war would have been averted.
We can say with hindsight that maybe the senate should have rolled over for Caesar and given him what he wanted from the get-go because we know that this story ends with the fall of the republic, but it's not so clear when we put ourselves in the shoes of the decisionmakers at the time. At this point it's pretty clear that Caesar is driven by ambition, so much so that he's willing to start a war just to avoid prosecution for his crimes. They were faced with a rising tyrant and what message would it send to other ambitious generals if the senate gave Caesar what he wanted? I think it was the senate's civic duty to resist Caesar.
This isn't a story about 2 bickering factions fighting for supremacy. This is a story about one man trying to assert his dominance over a political system, and that system pushing back against his aggressions.
Anyways, great reaction, as usual. Looking forward to the next one!
And Caesar likely *also* knew that the deadline timing was *intended* to pin him down and buy them time to prepare. Training time and expected operational seasons were part of his specialty, so it seems they might've unwittingly telegraphed their intent to him that way, real intent or not. Given his accomplishments, I see no reason not to believe that he was able to read between the lines and think about how he'd go about coming to kill him, in Pompey's place.
Stipulating that, he not only had a contingency plan in mind, but must have been on high alert for such an event. The moment he knew he'd been sentenced to death, he was ready. He acted when his enemies expected him to sit tight, it was his only option. Once you tell a person you are going to kill them, they'll do what it takes to prevent that, just as the fact that once a government bans something, it abandons any hope of regulating that thing. The vice you try to suppress will go underground, only leading to more problems you will also try to suppress, and so on. Classic FAFO.
PS: "Inter ames, silent leges" was a saying in Rome for a reason.
I think Domitious was thinking of what was best of the Republic, mostly. If he was thinking for himself, he would've surrendered himself to Ceaser and took his side because that's where the wind was blowing. But he didn't, his soldiers turned him over.
I'd love to see you tackle the history of Amsterdam. Particularly, why did it develop a comparatively liberal tradition while the rest of Europe was mired in feudalism and religious/political oppression? Russell Shorto has a thesis on that topic in his book on Amsterdam, which I read in advance of a trip there last summer.
I got a lot of thoughts but the one I wanna share is that once you're in war, you do not hold back, your goal is victory.
When the senate enacted the martial law and entrusted Pompey to use force they effectively declared war on Caesar. From that point on it was a civil war, laws didn't matter anymore. Caesar crossing the Rubicon or Mark Anthony taking arms while in office don't really matter in war time.
Waiting idly for Pompey would go against everything Caesar knew as a general.
Hannibal and Alexander crossed the Alps , who would have thought the J man would do it lol 😂 great point. Also worth noting Pomp’s and J man’s tactics are practically identical in this war. It all came down to an inexperienced cavalry charge , J Mans brilliance and veteran legions
I feel like Caesar would’ve kept the 10th legion since they were his most loyal, so much so that he used them to shame the rest of his army into staying with him. Also I don’t think Caesar didn’t think he was rebelling, he knew when he crossed the rubicon while in command what the possible consequences would be and did it anyways
I've noticed an anti-caesar bias in HC's videos as well.
Wait to you get to the things he says about Octavian