They were protecting their power because Ceasar was consolidating power, not just for subjugation. That’s the whole debate. Ceasar was becoming a dictator, but he was popular in Rome. He was committing genocide. He used war and the destruction of foreign lands to upold flagrant triumphants. At the same time, Brutus was a conniving piece of shit. The real question is, why do we still simp for the Romans?
Edit: History nerds are fine. I’m more talking about the kind of guys that try to live like a viking and buy a horned helmet, but Rome.
Edit 2: If you don’t think ceasar committed genocide, you’re insane and ignore evidence. Check out this 5+ HOUR LONG VIDEO DETAILING IT, WITH EVIDENCE AND CITATIONS. (Dan Carlin)
Also, shout out to Vercingetorix. I also love how a debate from the Romans is still bleeding into today. That’s interesting.
I think people still simp for Rome because it is first major Western empire. It also set the standard for Western countries of what a non hereditary government could look like.
They were protecting their power because Ceasar was consolidating power, not just for subjugation.
I fail to see the difference. Caesar’s consolidation of power only concerned them because he was a lifelong populare. When the ultraconservative Sulla took the dictatorship, they fell over themselves to lick his feet, and when the opportunistic Pompey had all-but-subsumed the power of the state under his umbrella, they chose him to be their champion.
He was committing genocide.
This is an extremely dubious assertion I don’t want to get into right now, but I promise you that the conservatives who assassinated him didn’t give a single good goddamn about it. Every goddamn time this argument comes up it’s from someone who watches Dan Carlin. The argument is not taken seriously elsewhere outside of French academia, and there only for nationalist reasons.
He used war and the destruction of foreign lands to upold flagrant triumphants.
That is by no means unique to Caesar or even objectionable contemporarily. The destruction of foreign lands was what triumphs were all about, and triumphs happened, meaningfully, only under the Republic.
The real question is, why do we still simp for the Romans?
Because most of Western culture has roots in either Rome, Greece, or Germanic peoples (or Christianity, but Christianity sucks)?
… that consolidation of power wasn’t a problem until someone with The Wrong Views™ came into power suggests very much that the issue was not consolidation of power, but the ideology of the wealthy being threatened. You know, the same reason that they murdered democratically elected populist after populist.
In the brutal military junta’s defense, semi-meritocratic military junta > aristocratic monarchy
It’s just not, y’know, democracy. Except on the local level, where Roman assemblies in Roman coloniae retained much of the power that had been lost in the city of Rome itself.
They were protecting their power because Ceasar was consolidating power, not just for subjugation. That’s the whole debate. Ceasar was becoming a dictator, but he was popular in Rome. He was committing genocide. He used war and the destruction of foreign lands to upold flagrant triumphants. At the same time, Brutus was a conniving piece of shit. The real question is, why do we still simp for the Romans?
Edit: History nerds are fine. I’m more talking about the kind of guys that try to live like a viking and buy a horned helmet, but Rome.
Edit 2: If you don’t think ceasar committed genocide, you’re insane and ignore evidence. Check out this 5+ HOUR LONG VIDEO DETAILING IT, WITH EVIDENCE AND CITATIONS. (Dan Carlin)
Also, shout out to Vercingetorix. I also love how a debate from the Romans is still bleeding into today. That’s interesting.
https://youtu.be/iT92zx790c4?si=Pa88OGvMZz11eeRG
I’m okay with “simping for Rome” because in my opinion we are well past the “too soon” phase of enjoying the aesthetics of an empire
Not to be rude, but I just want to place my bets…
Do you play warhammer 40k as well?
I tried it out 5-10 years ago in my early teens. Wasn’t really my thing and I don’t find the lore the most interesting
I think people still simp for Rome because it is first major Western empire. It also set the standard for Western countries of what a non hereditary government could look like.
I fail to see the difference. Caesar’s consolidation of power only concerned them because he was a lifelong populare. When the ultraconservative Sulla took the dictatorship, they fell over themselves to lick his feet, and when the opportunistic Pompey had all-but-subsumed the power of the state under his umbrella, they chose him to be their champion.
This is an extremely dubious assertion I don’t want to get into right now, but I promise you that the conservatives who assassinated him didn’t give a single good goddamn about it. Every goddamn time this argument comes up it’s from someone who watches Dan Carlin. The argument is not taken seriously elsewhere outside of French academia, and there only for nationalist reasons.
That is by no means unique to Caesar or even objectionable contemporarily. The destruction of foreign lands was what triumphs were all about, and triumphs happened, meaningfully, only under the Republic.
Because most of Western culture has roots in either Rome, Greece, or Germanic peoples (or Christianity, but Christianity sucks)?
I vote we bring back the old ways. The Romaboo ways. Let’s make a statue of Obama as a Graeco-Roman god, purely for the lulz
Macron,president of the French republic is referred to, not ironically, as Jupiter. Only thing missing is the bronze statue.
MACRONIVS OPTIMVS MAXIMVS
Too bad he isn’t nearly cool enough to merit such a comparison. In fact, I think we should go for a bit of damnatio memoriae when we get the chance.
One is for me, the other for thee. It’s the same in definition but different in results. I think you’re being overly pedantic.
… that consolidation of power wasn’t a problem until someone with The Wrong Views™ came into power suggests very much that the issue was not consolidation of power, but the ideology of the wealthy being threatened. You know, the same reason that they murdered democratically elected populist after populist.
We simp for Rome cause the imagery makes us hard. Simple as. I’d probably be joining that military junta if I actually.lived then, too.
In the brutal military junta’s defense, semi-meritocratic military junta > aristocratic monarchy
It’s just not, y’know, democracy. Except on the local level, where Roman assemblies in Roman coloniae retained much of the power that had been lost in the city of Rome itself.