This guy needs to expand his answers. No Caligula didn't make his horse a consul, but he threatened to do it to make the senators look foolish and powerless. No, Caligula didn't sleep with his sister's. But remember his mother, father, and older siblings were killed by Tiberius and he probably had a close relationship with them because they were the only family he had. It was propaganda from the senators.
Also, incest was a "standard" political insult used against your political enemies. One example from the late Republic was Clodius accused of incest with his sister by Cicero, if my memory is correct.
No disrespect to this dude, but for those of us with an interest but a somewhat limited understanding of Rome and it’s emperors, more detailed explanations would have been welcomed rather than just “yes” or “no” answers then moving on
I think what he was trying to do with those is go "this is said by certain ancient historians, and is often brought up in conversation about this emperor, however it is most likely a story made up to make this emperor look bad"
The lack of any explanations with a series of yes/no answers was really frustrating. Also he failed to explain why he considers some stories about roman emperors to be baseless propaganda and others to be based in fact. where's the cutoff? how do we not know its ALL lies?
It’s due to the problematic sources and biased contemporary writer…and he does allude to this. I think he’s working off of a view where the people here know a bit about Roman history…but I guess people don’t.
@@Aglahad while I also would have liked a little more explanation on some of the yes or no questions, he was also probably working on a max time limit for the video which forced some of the answers to be so short.
I did enjoy the video, but not as much as some of the other videos on this channel in which questions from Google were being answered. It would have been nice if some of the straight “yes” and “no” responses would’ve had a bit more explanation. Please remember that most of the viewers are not experts in ancient Rome. 😊
Completely unwarranted Domitian slander in this video, he recalled Agricola but he had an unusually long tenure to begin with and wasn't delivering results justifying his expenses at that point. It was the same deal as Tiberius recalling Germanicus. Overall I agree with all the Yes/Nos on what probably did or didn't happen, but it could have been expanded that while Nero probably didn't kill his second wife he definitely killed his first wife.
Agreed. The problem with Agricola in Scotland was that the Romans faced a similar situation to that facing Augustus and Tiberius in Germany between the Rhine and the Elbe, it required a huge military presence, with very few centres of control for the tribes and facing serious military problems elsewhere in the Empire. Wars have always been ridiculously expensive to fight, both in money and men. Also, I think that Commodus gets a bit of a raw deal from history. He faced an economic crisis because his father had engaged in a hideously expensive fight on the Danube frontier against the Marcommani. The other demands on the treasury meant that Commodus had began the devaluation of the currency to pay for everything. That caused the eventual economic crisis that nearly crippled the Empire.
Isn't this the same guy that stated emphatically that all Roman gladiators were slaves, with no exceptions? I've been wary of HH ever since that little nugget.
Aristotle would suggest you view of the paradigm is off. He said there were three forms of government and each had a perfect and corrupted form. Tyranny was the corrupted form of Monarchy Oligarchy was the corrupted form of Aristocracy Democracy is the corrupted form of Polity If the Republic falls to Tyranny it is because it became more democratic meaning subject to mob rule. At that point the question Mel Gibson asks in The Patriot applies “Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?” The question is can we keep our Polity? This is where there are checks and balances on the rule of the democratic elected such that the rights of minorities are Maintained. So the paradigm I suggest we should consider is whatever the form of the government we have, does it have a fair set of principles upon which we can rely that our rights will be maintained. It is the erosion of those rights, the corruption of the systems in place to ensure them that leads to an unfair government.
@@franklombardo8246 Interesting thoughts. Thanks. It is my opinion that the worry in all cases is the concentration of power, and it is what the founders of the US Republic were most concerned with. The idea that just power is held with the consent of the governed, and that every effort must be made to push power away from the center, where it tends to concentrate, and then inevitably be corrupted. Pure democracy is unmanageable, though it is in place in many aspects of American life, such as ballot initiatives and local millage. Representative government, where the lawmaking bodies are elected by popular majorities, seems to have the best chance of avoiding corruption. But, this requires a reasonably informed and participatory electorate. It's hard work, and the people have to share in those efforts.
Imagine living in Commodus's time when everything, has been renamed. "I'm going down to the commodus, on commodus street in commodus next commodus, do you want to come, it'll be so commodus"
I always did assume caligula did make his horse consula but it was more of a joke or insulting gesture as if to say my horse could do a better job then you lot
Tiberius technically spent "part of his time" in Capri, but not in the sense of a weekend retreat, he spent the last 13 years of his life there. And while he did leave a lot of business to Sejanus he did continue conducting state affairs while absent from Rome so it wasn't a complete abdication of his duties.
This might be my least favorite of your "historian answers questions" videos. Bunch of yes/no answers, no context, no explanation. Okay, this guy has a PhD, I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. But I would like to know WHY some contemporary sources are believable and others are not? Who wrote them, when and with what agenda? If a story is a fabrication, what actually DID happen? Why THIS story was fabricated, what was so outrageous about it to the contemporary people? And for the weird and outrageous things that DID happen - what were the consequences? Most of your guests are enthusiastic and can tell a great story. This guy sounds like he doesn't want to be here.
I mean to be fair, that would be a 4 hour long Q and A. It all comes down to biased sourcing….explaining this each time would also bore a ton of people as well.
@Aglahad Yeah, but they could have picked fewer questions, with more varied answers? Pick one emperor and explain what kind of enemies he had and what their goals were. Pick one type of rumor, and explain why it was so transgressive when you account for social norms about family, or for how the political system of Rome worked. Pick one story about a famous structure or event and explain what actually happened there. Instead we get "no, he didn't sleep with X, next question" or "his enemies wrote it, I don't think this is true" on repeat.
@@Aglahad Well most of these videos are exactly what you are describing and they are all the more entertaining and interesting because the explanation is given.
This historian is shockingly condescending. His answers are often monosyllabic and his certainty unshakable which leads me to believe he has not studied the sources in depth. Sources of the ancient world are few and often contradictory yet he seems to know which ones are telling the truth and which ones are lying. It strains credulity.
"Here's where I think the historic writings are lying. Here's where I think they're based in fact. I will not explain the logic behind these beliefs." - This Guy
I always read the seashells incident as Caligula mocking the soldiers for their cowardice in refusing to invade Britain, a sort of "Let these shells be your war booty!" situation. In addition, Tiberius didn't spend time at Capri, he lived there for over a decade. The horse consul snippet came across more as Caligula's attempt to deride the senators for their uselessness i.e. "I might as well make my horse consul, for he'd do a better job of it than any of you!" Much of his reported behaviour reads (to me at least) as a young man coming into ultimate power and quickly realising that he was surrounded by sycophants and incompetents, and deciding to push them as far as he could, only realising at the last that some of them could only be pushed so far. Recall that he's generally considered to have been a good emperor, right up to the point that he fell ill and the sycophants rushed to his cousin's house in an attempt to butter him up under the assumption that Caligula would die and Gemellus would succeed him. I suspect that was the moment the emperor realised that the people around him would say anything if it meant they'd be granted favours, and that soured him a little. I could go on at length, but I'm tired.
As a historian, professional soldier and another field that cannot be named, we can establish with a high degree of accuracy that some emperors had personality disorders, a way of saying profiled high typology with a high likelihood of matching psychopathological disorders. Arminius is an easy case as his issues were created by the separation from parents age 5. Caligula was most likely borderline and paranoid, psychotic, without being schizophrenic. Borderline means pervasive false beliefs centred on abandonment and paranoia. The most interesting thing is that drinking from led goblets which caused mercury poisoning and psychosis. Now for cases we can follow, is based on hair samples but we cannot do so for Caligula. Trajan drank less wine, avoided silver or led cups as did most soldiers (legionnaire equipment and weight) so he was neither psychotic nor a personality disorder on sheer forensic and historic evidence. So if we reconcile available testimony, with modern day profiling, forensic sciences forensic psychiatry, then yes Caligula is likely to have aced with an extreme behavior, even if we can inputs 10% of the crazy things, one crazy thing is one too many and the defining red flag, norm, versus occasional impulse. But, in a nutshell, having followed tracked or caught worse people than Caligula, often in very influential seemingly leadership positions, yes Caligula checks the key checks. Nero is another case, personality disorder, histrionic personality and more.
Small comment : did you really had to keep every time Simon Elliot said "next question" ? It really quickly became a bit frustrating. I wonder how shorter the length of the video would be if they were all taken out ? Next question.
Q; Does Nero charge the thick end of a fiver for a cup of coffee? A; Yes! Seriously, I enjoyed this immensely and learned a few things too! Nice one Dr Simon and team. ✨🌟👍
A problem with the Imperial system the only way of replacing an emperor was to kill him. Conspiracies against the Emperors were endemic. Even the "good" emperors faced conspiracies against them. What helped determine histories' judgement on the Emperor was if they managed to have a peaceful succesion, if they were succeeded by their chosen successor. The "good" emperors like Augustus, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and others were just as quick to execute perceived enemies as the "bad" ones.
This was painful to watch. Why is this guy invited so often? High-level info and boring as hell. I have never saw actual historian giving so much opinion based info. Why is this guy invited as an expert?
On Caligula's bridge of boats across the Gulf of Puteoli, this reminds me of other fantastical stories told of Caligula like his pleasure palace boats that he built on Lake Nemi. Historians discounted it until they were actually found and recovered. One thing about "grand imperial projects" or events that were described as being larger than life, in the time of conspicuous consumption the Emperor had to be seen to be throwing the cash around with grand impressive projects, entertainments, dinners and spending because they had to be seen to out "compete" with the lavish aristocracy. When they were seen as stingy, *cough* Galba *cough*, it usually ended rather badly.
7:30 At least the Senate of Rome thought Caligula was a god, as Caligula (like about every other Roman Emperor) was consecrated by senatorial vote - elevated into the Roman Pantheon to sit among the other gods after his death.
When dealing with history this far back it’s hard to say what actually happened for certain. A lot of historians had specific agendas and a lot chronicles didn’t survive. So in the end we have limited sources that may have been changed by future rulers. So a lot of stuff has to interpreted.
I think if he didn't need to answer a lot of questions he would have been able to give more thorough responses. It seemed like he was rushed to have to complete the video, because there were times where it seemed he was about to go in depth but then stopped and was like "In short (no/yes)"
- "Everything you were told about Tiberius, Caligula and Nero is just made up by historians. I refuse to elaborate. Now you should continue to listen to historians like me."
I always love Simon, but to be fair this might not be the topic he was very thrill to answer since it’s too much repetitive and not that interesting anyway… Can we please just get him to talk extensively about Septimius Severus and Pertinax on TH-cam? He’s so under appreciated and I think this is not very down his alley…
Question: Did anything ever happen at all in Ancient Rome? This guy: No. Question: Did Ancient Rome even exist? This guy: No, next question. Question: There's no questions left so the interview is over. This guy: No it isn't.
I'm sure this expert is a nice guy but I dont think he really wanted to be here. It came across as though the audience were pestering him and he barely held back an eyeroll with every question.
@ and the modern version of Google. Apparently during the second century Christianity started to ve seen as separate from Judaism. Nero rulen 30-35 after the assumed death of Christ. Seem doubtful that he would have made a difference between different forms of Judaism. If jews did not acknowledge the divinity of the Emperor then why would they be hunted as well?
@austinwilkerson84 Because, like many historians, he likes to paint things in a modern light and apply modern morals and ideals to a different time period. He likes to use history more as a form of activism and is just dishonest. Watch his video telling the lady of African descent that the "most important Roman Emperor in British history" was African (Septimius Severus). Obviously implying that he was a Black African. He was born in Africa, but it was North Africa, and we know he was, in fact, not black. He wasn't lying, he was just being consciously dishonest in order to make some type of modern political point. I also watched a video of his on gladiators that was just plain wrong in many instances. He's just not good. History is history, it's fact, and it doesn't have room for that type of disingenuous, modern rewriting. His take on many things includes dishonest interpretations like this. That's why. You can't accept everything an "expert" on anything says because many modern "experts" can't leave their politics at the door
I responded, but I'm tired of taking the time to write out responses only for TH-cam to instantly remove them because they contain too many facts for their liking
@austinwilkerson84 Because, like many historians, he likes to paint things in a modern light and apply modern morals and ideals to a different time period. He likes to use history more as a form of activism and is just dishonest. Watch his video telling the lady of African descent that the "most important Roman Emperor in British history" was African (Septimius Severus). Obviously implying that he was a Sub-Saharan African. He was born in Africa, but it was North Africa, and we know he was, in fact, not Sub-Saharan. He wasn't lying, he was just being consciously dishonest in order to make some type of modern political point. I also watched a video of his on gladiators that was just plain wrong in many instances. He's just not good. History is history, it's fact, and it doesn't have room for that type of disingenuous, modern rewriting. His take on many things includes dishonest interpretations like this. That's why. You can't accept everything an "expert" on anything says because many modern "experts" can't leave their politics at the door
This guy needs to expand his answers. No Caligula didn't make his horse a consul, but he threatened to do it to make the senators look foolish and powerless. No, Caligula didn't sleep with his sister's. But remember his mother, father, and older siblings were killed by Tiberius and he probably had a close relationship with them because they were the only family he had. It was propaganda from the senators.
Agreed. He just says No and then moves on.
I agree. And if he didn't make a bridge of boats across the bay of Naples, then what DID he most likely do?
Also, incest was a "standard" political insult used against your political enemies. One example from the late Republic was Clodius accused of incest with his sister by Cicero, if my memory is correct.
No disrespect to this dude, but for those of us with an interest but a somewhat limited understanding of Rome and it’s emperors, more detailed explanations would have been welcomed rather than just “yes” or “no” answers then moving on
I think he was working off of a view that people here have SOME baseline knowledge…otherwise this video would be 3 hours long
I think what he was trying to do with those is go "this is said by certain ancient historians, and is often brought up in conversation about this emperor, however it is most likely a story made up to make this emperor look bad"
The lack of any explanations with a series of yes/no answers was really frustrating.
Also he failed to explain why he considers some stories about roman emperors to be baseless propaganda and others to be based in fact. where's the cutoff? how do we not know its ALL lies?
Yeah he was ass
It’s due to the problematic sources and biased contemporary writer…and he does allude to this. I think he’s working off of a view where the people here know a bit about Roman history…but I guess people don’t.
@ no he’s just boring plain and simple
@@Aglahad while I also would have liked a little more explanation on some of the yes or no questions, he was also probably working on a max time limit for the video which forced some of the answers to be so short.
Exactly, his dismissal of Suetonius as propaganda is a bit too facile
I did enjoy the video, but not as much as some of the other videos on this channel in which questions from Google were being answered. It would have been nice if some of the straight “yes” and “no” responses would’ve had a bit more explanation. Please remember that most of the viewers are not experts in ancient Rome. 😊
Actually, some background on the question before yes or no is very nice. This way more information sticks in the brain.
Caligula thought of making his horse a consul until he realized it would always vote "Neigh."
Yes and no answers with barely no arguments behind them. I'm sorry History Hit but this is not the quality content you usually deliver.
Completely unwarranted Domitian slander in this video, he recalled Agricola but he had an unusually long tenure to begin with and wasn't delivering results justifying his expenses at that point. It was the same deal as Tiberius recalling Germanicus. Overall I agree with all the Yes/Nos on what probably did or didn't happen, but it could have been expanded that while Nero probably didn't kill his second wife he definitely killed his first wife.
Agreed. The problem with Agricola in Scotland was that the Romans faced a similar situation to that facing Augustus and Tiberius in Germany between the Rhine and the Elbe, it required a huge military presence, with very few centres of control for the tribes and facing serious military problems elsewhere in the Empire. Wars have always been ridiculously expensive to fight, both in money and men. Also, I think that Commodus gets a bit of a raw deal from history. He faced an economic crisis because his father had engaged in a hideously expensive fight on the Danube frontier against the Marcommani. The other demands on the treasury meant that Commodus had began the devaluation of the currency to pay for everything. That caused the eventual economic crisis that nearly crippled the Empire.
Isn't this the same guy that stated emphatically that all Roman gladiators were slaves, with no exceptions? I've been wary of HH ever since that little nugget.
the guy is useless
The lesson I take from this is, keep the Republic, and don't adopt an emperor. (I hope it isn't too late).
Aristotle would suggest you view of the paradigm is off.
He said there were three forms of government and each had a perfect and corrupted form.
Tyranny was the corrupted form of Monarchy
Oligarchy was the corrupted form of Aristocracy
Democracy is the corrupted form of Polity
If the Republic falls to Tyranny it is because it became more democratic meaning subject to mob rule. At that point the question Mel Gibson asks in The Patriot applies “Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?”
The question is can we keep our Polity? This is where there are checks and balances on the rule of the democratic elected such that the rights of minorities are Maintained.
So the paradigm I suggest we should consider is whatever the form of the government we have, does it have a fair set of principles upon which we can rely that our rights will be maintained.
It is the erosion of those rights, the corruption of the systems in place to ensure them that leads to an unfair government.
@@franklombardo8246 Interesting thoughts. Thanks.
It is my opinion that the worry in all cases is the concentration of power, and it is what the founders of the US Republic were most concerned with.
The idea that just power is held with the consent of the governed, and that every effort must be made to push power away from the center, where it tends to concentrate, and then inevitably be corrupted.
Pure democracy is unmanageable, though it is in place in many aspects of American life, such as ballot initiatives and local millage.
Representative government, where the lawmaking bodies are elected by popular majorities, seems to have the best chance of avoiding corruption. But, this requires a reasonably informed and participatory electorate.
It's hard work, and the people have to share in those efforts.
Here before the Metatron treatment
the truest comment to ever be commented
Insert surprised thumbnail and title
Who is that?
This guys no....professorrrrrrrrr
I was thinking the same thing when I clicked the video. Haha. Love @metatron
Imagine living in Commodus's time when everything, has been renamed. "I'm going down to the commodus, on commodus street in commodus next commodus, do you want to come, it'll be so commodus"
heh, commodus
Sitting on the commodus taking a nice morning commodus. 🙂
@@ageingviking5587 Be sure to wipe your commodus.
I always did assume caligula did make his horse consula but it was more of a joke or insulting gesture as if to say my horse could do a better job then you lot
Tiberius technically spent "part of his time" in Capri, but not in the sense of a weekend retreat, he spent the last 13 years of his life there. And while he did leave a lot of business to Sejanus he did continue conducting state affairs while absent from Rome so it wasn't a complete abdication of his duties.
Helagabauls deserves more than a passing mention.
This might be my least favorite of your "historian answers questions" videos. Bunch of yes/no answers, no context, no explanation.
Okay, this guy has a PhD, I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. But I would like to know WHY some contemporary sources are believable and others are not? Who wrote them, when and with what agenda? If a story is a fabrication, what actually DID happen? Why THIS story was fabricated, what was so outrageous about it to the contemporary people? And for the weird and outrageous things that DID happen - what were the consequences?
Most of your guests are enthusiastic and can tell a great story. This guy sounds like he doesn't want to be here.
I mean to be fair, that would be a 4 hour long Q and A. It all comes down to biased sourcing….explaining this each time would also bore a ton of people as well.
@Aglahad Yeah, but they could have picked fewer questions, with more varied answers?
Pick one emperor and explain what kind of enemies he had and what their goals were. Pick one type of rumor, and explain why it was so transgressive when you account for social norms about family, or for how the political system of Rome worked. Pick one story about a famous structure or event and explain what actually happened there.
Instead we get "no, he didn't sleep with X, next question" or "his enemies wrote it, I don't think this is true" on repeat.
@@Aglahad Well most of these videos are exactly what you are describing and they are all the more entertaining and interesting because the explanation is given.
This dude's like a mafia lawyer for roman emperors
This historian is shockingly condescending. His answers are often monosyllabic and his certainty unshakable which leads me to believe he has not studied the sources in depth. Sources of the ancient world are few and often contradictory yet he seems to know which ones are telling the truth and which ones are lying. It strains credulity.
What I think is that he's tired of being asked stupid questions. 😂
I gave up after the fourth or fifth ''No. Next question.''
Comes across as a little patronising and even more terrifyingly - dull.
"Here's where I think the historic writings are lying. Here's where I think they're based in fact. I will not explain the logic behind these beliefs." - This Guy
Gosh the editing is insufferable
Terrible one. Girl gave us nothing.
Hope he’s not a professor at some expensive university, because that’s just money down the drain…
The quick Yes or No answers are not really what I came here for tbh
Professor Boomerang Eyebrows is dreadful at this. Find a new Rome "expert"
Thank you for the bare minimum. Perhaps Metatron will be kind enough to reshoot this Q & A properly.
Love these historians react videos - keep them coming!!!
Some context would be nice! Like Nero had his mother killed. Ok… why?!
I always read the seashells incident as Caligula mocking the soldiers for their cowardice in refusing to invade Britain, a sort of "Let these shells be your war booty!" situation.
In addition, Tiberius didn't spend time at Capri, he lived there for over a decade. The horse consul snippet came across more as Caligula's attempt to deride the senators for their uselessness i.e. "I might as well make my horse consul, for he'd do a better job of it than any of you!" Much of his reported behaviour reads (to me at least) as a young man coming into ultimate power and quickly realising that he was surrounded by sycophants and incompetents, and deciding to push them as far as he could, only realising at the last that some of them could only be pushed so far. Recall that he's generally considered to have been a good emperor, right up to the point that he fell ill and the sycophants rushed to his cousin's house in an attempt to butter him up under the assumption that Caligula would die and Gemellus would succeed him. I suspect that was the moment the emperor realised that the people around him would say anything if it meant they'd be granted favours, and that soured him a little.
I could go on at length, but I'm tired.
As a historian, professional soldier and another field that cannot be named, we can establish with a high degree of accuracy that some emperors had personality disorders, a way of saying profiled high typology with a high likelihood of matching psychopathological disorders. Arminius is an easy case as his issues were created by the separation from parents age 5. Caligula was most likely borderline and paranoid, psychotic, without being schizophrenic. Borderline means pervasive false beliefs centred on abandonment and paranoia. The most interesting thing is that drinking from led goblets which caused mercury poisoning and psychosis. Now for cases we can follow, is based on hair samples but we cannot do so for Caligula. Trajan drank less wine, avoided silver or led cups as did most soldiers (legionnaire equipment and weight) so he was neither psychotic nor a personality disorder on sheer forensic and historic evidence. So if we reconcile available testimony, with modern day profiling, forensic sciences forensic psychiatry, then yes Caligula is likely to have aced with an extreme behavior, even if we can inputs 10% of the crazy things, one crazy thing is one too many and the defining red flag, norm, versus occasional impulse. But, in a nutshell, having followed tracked or caught worse people than Caligula, often in very influential seemingly leadership positions, yes Caligula checks the key checks. Nero is another case, personality disorder, histrionic personality and more.
Small comment : did you really had to keep every time Simon Elliot said "next question" ? It really quickly became a bit frustrating. I wonder how shorter the length of the video would be if they were all taken out ?
Next question.
Doesn't that happen in almost every episode though?
Very good video, congratulations.
Q; Does Nero charge the thick end of a fiver for a cup of coffee?
A; Yes!
Seriously, I enjoyed this immensely and learned a few things too!
Nice one Dr Simon and team. ✨🌟👍
A problem with the Imperial system the only way of replacing an emperor was to kill him. Conspiracies against the Emperors were endemic. Even the "good" emperors faced conspiracies against them. What helped determine histories' judgement on the Emperor was if they managed to have a peaceful succesion, if they were succeeded by their chosen successor. The "good" emperors like Augustus, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and others were just as quick to execute perceived enemies as the "bad" ones.
love these videos, thank you!
I ❤ only the slmihhty Allah. Amen.
Regarding the question whether Nero did kill his wife: One might add that Nero let his first wife Octavia be executed so he could marry Poppaea.
19:03 he looks like shrek and keep in mind that bust of Maximinus Thrax is meant to flatter him.
Roman busts were very realistic, including moles ECT. But when they did statues the rest of the body would be idolized.
Don't worry. Be flattered.
thank you!
wonderful teachable and grand
really fascinating to hear someone who knows this history backwards and forwards
This was painful to watch. Why is this guy invited so often? High-level info and boring as hell. I have never saw actual historian giving so much opinion based info. Why is this guy invited as an expert?
I was sitting here thinking about the Roman Empire then this video popped up.
On Caligula's bridge of boats across the Gulf of Puteoli, this reminds me of other fantastical stories told of Caligula like his pleasure palace boats that he built on Lake Nemi. Historians discounted it until they were actually found and recovered. One thing about "grand imperial projects" or events that were described as being larger than life, in the time of conspicuous consumption the Emperor had to be seen to be throwing the cash around with grand impressive projects, entertainments, dinners and spending because they had to be seen to out "compete" with the lavish aristocracy. When they were seen as stingy, *cough* Galba *cough*, it usually ended rather badly.
Elagabalus not mentioned as one of the worst emperors, I won.
7:30 At least the Senate of Rome thought Caligula was a god, as Caligula (like about every other Roman Emperor) was consecrated by senatorial vote - elevated into the Roman Pantheon to sit among the other gods after his death.
I wanna see Metatrons face when he clicks on the vid, then scrolls to the comment section and sees "the metatron treatement"
Can't wait!
Yes. You can. You can everything. 🎉.
Thanks👍🏼
This is Elagabalus erasure.
So basically I'm hearing: The Trials of Apollo by Rick Riordan, pretty much bang on minus the talking horse 🐴
Metatron is gonna looooove this one 😅
When dealing with history this far back it’s hard to say what actually happened for certain. A lot of historians had specific agendas and a lot chronicles didn’t survive. So in the end we have limited sources that may have been changed by future rulers. So a lot of stuff has to interpreted.
Mary Beard has really taught me well about Rome, I knew it all.
This is dreadful. 5 minutes in and I've learned nothing. Not wasting any more time with the rest of it.
Liked the host, laconic and interesting
I think if he didn't need to answer a lot of questions he would have been able to give more thorough responses. It seemed like he was rushed to have to complete the video, because there were times where it seemed he was about to go in depth but then stopped and was like "In short (no/yes)"
Doesn't explain anything. Just says "no". Pretty much useless
this man knows his stuff
'No evidence... apart from contemporary authors' 😂
One of the shallowest and least interesting videos on this channel. Dude puts zero effort to his answers.
I don’t think so, he goes off on a number of questions. Some he assumes people have a LITTLE baseline knowledge.
his yes and no answers are boring
A lot of people talking about "yes" and "no" answers, but I downvoted because I had to turn my speakers up to hear anything.
Peer-review means your friend looked at it and gave it a 👍
- "Everything you were told about Tiberius, Caligula and Nero is just made up by historians. I refuse to elaborate. Now you should continue to listen to historians like me."
dont get this guy on again, waste of time
Bursting bubbles! Glad to see a sober interpretation of history.
oh oh the metatron plebes are here
I always love Simon, but to be fair this might not be the topic he was very thrill to answer since it’s too much repetitive and not that interesting anyway… Can we please just get him to talk extensively about Septimius Severus and Pertinax on TH-cam? He’s so under appreciated and I think this is not very down his alley…
Why? So he can allude that Septumius Severus was a black African?
Did all roads lead to Rome
Let's review... He agrees that Nero castrated a a boy and made him his wife BUT all that other stuff is just propaganda!
Just anwswering yes or no, with no further explanation?
Wasn't Elagabolus pathetically bad?
or hilariously messy?
Question: Did anything ever happen at all in Ancient Rome?
This guy: No.
Question: Did Ancient Rome even exist?
This guy: No, next question.
Question: There's no questions left so the interview is over.
This guy: No it isn't.
I'm sure this expert is a nice guy but I dont think he really wanted to be here. It came across as though the audience were pestering him and he barely held back an eyeroll with every question.
Nero was really popular and a victim of slandering.
Justice for Nero
Nice video. Thanks HH
I’d go with Romulus or Remus as they are made up and mythical 😂
Get Tristan Hughes and re do this video
This video sure was a fail, wasn't it 😂
The Metatron is gonna like this one
Defo Vitellius
12:08 not whackien phoenix
Micheal Sheen was so good as Nero in Rome rise and fall of an empire. Really worth a watch.
hes generally good in everything
Stabbings
I wonder at what point romans make a difference between jews and christian?
There are these things called books.
@ and the modern version of Google. Apparently during the second century Christianity started to ve seen as separate from Judaism. Nero rulen 30-35 after the assumed death of Christ. Seem doubtful that he would have made a difference between different forms of Judaism. If jews did not acknowledge the divinity of the Emperor then why would they be hunted as well?
ok enough of this guy
This guy sucks.
This guy is a garbage historian
Why’s that?
What are your qualifications ?
@austinwilkerson84 Because, like many historians, he likes to paint things in a modern light and apply modern morals and ideals to a different time period. He likes to use history more as a form of activism and is just dishonest. Watch his video telling the lady of African descent that the "most important Roman Emperor in British history" was African (Septimius Severus). Obviously implying that he was a Black African. He was born in Africa, but it was North Africa, and we know he was, in fact, not black. He wasn't lying, he was just being consciously dishonest in order to make some type of modern political point. I also watched a video of his on gladiators that was just plain wrong in many instances. He's just not good. History is history, it's fact, and it doesn't have room for that type of disingenuous, modern rewriting. His take on many things includes dishonest interpretations like this. That's why. You can't accept everything an "expert" on anything says because many modern "experts" can't leave their politics at the door
I responded, but I'm tired of taking the time to write out responses only for TH-cam to instantly remove them because they contain too many facts for their liking
@austinwilkerson84 Because, like many historians, he likes to paint things in a modern light and apply modern morals and ideals to a different time period. He likes to use history more as a form of activism and is just dishonest. Watch his video telling the lady of African descent that the "most important Roman Emperor in British history" was African (Septimius Severus). Obviously implying that he was a Sub-Saharan African. He was born in Africa, but it was North Africa, and we know he was, in fact, not Sub-Saharan. He wasn't lying, he was just being consciously dishonest in order to make some type of modern political point. I also watched a video of his on gladiators that was just plain wrong in many instances. He's just not good. History is history, it's fact, and it doesn't have room for that type of disingenuous, modern rewriting. His take on many things includes dishonest interpretations like this. That's why. You can't accept everything an "expert" on anything says because many modern "experts" can't leave their politics at the door