Films & Series I, Caesar: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire (1997)

Jovialis

Advisor
Messages
9,324
Reaction score
5,917
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Y-DNA haplogroup
R-PF7566 (R-Y227216)
mtDNA haplogroup
H6a1b7

I remember seeing this documentary on TV a long time ago. This is the first episode, however I didn't know there were five more. I am watching them on Amazon Prime.

I like these older documentaries, they have a certain panache to them.
 
I have the entire collection of Rise and fall of an Empire :)

DQUPKVF.jpg
 
Belgian history starts with Julius Caesar. He was a very ambitious man but also a mass murderer.
I don't know how much is true of what he had written in De bello Gallico, but he was boasting how many tribes he beated and murdered.
The Italians loved his cruel story. It made him very popular.
It was a war he had initiated himself. He only needed an excuse, the movement of the Helvetii.
It was all planned. He didn't conquer Gaul for the sake of Rome, but for his own glory.
Millions died for his glory, not only in Gaul.
From then on Rome was governed by ambitious men who tried to keep the mass happy and ignorant with panem et circenses.
 
I haven't seen the 1997 documentary about Julius Caesar.

The BBC made a documentary call Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire in 2006 (6 episodes).


It was emulated by the History Channel in 2008 (the one Salento mentioned above) in 13 episodes.


Also noteworthy is Mary Beard's Ultimate Rome: Empire Without Limit and Meet the Romans.


 
Belgian history starts with Julius Caesar. He was a very ambitious man but also a mass murderer.
I don't know how much is true of what he had written in De bello Gallico, but he was boasting how many tribes he beated and murdered.
The Italians loved his cruel story. It made him very popular.
It was a war he had initiated himself. He only needed an excuse, the movement of the Helvetii.
It was all planned. He didn't conquer Gaul for the sake of Rome, but for his own glory.
Millions died for his glory, not only in Gaul.
From then on Rome was governed by ambitious men who tried to keep the mass happy and ignorant with panem et circenses.

It is the same reason why people admire Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan, or Andrew Jackson, or Napoleon, or the Indo-Europeans, or the Vikings, or Action movies, or heavy metal, or wealthy and powerful captains of industry, or sports teams, and fighters, so on and so on.
 
I haven't seen the 1997 documentary about Julius Caesar.

The BBC made a documentary call Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire in 2006 (6 episodes).


It was emulated by the History Channel in 2008 (the one Salento mentioned above) in 13 episodes.


Also noteworthy is Mary Beard's Ultimate Rome: Empire Without Limit and Meet the Romans.



Thanks for the links Maciamo!
 
It is the same reason why people admire Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan, or Andrew Jackson, or Napoleon, or the Indo-Europeans, or the Vikings, or Action movies, or heavy metal, or wealthy and powerful captains of industry, or sports teams, and fighters, so on and so on.

yes, that's correct
just putting it in another perspective
you can look at it from different angles
 
yes, that's correct
just putting it in another perspective
you can look at it from different angles

I look at it this way, in more recent history, the 1700s, the French had sacked and looted my mother's village. However, I don't hold any ill-will towards the French. In fact, I am looking forward to the day I can visit Paris.


The Catholic Church sent troops to crush an independence uprising in my Father's town during that time, and in the process executed many of the people there. While I am not really much of a practicing catholic, (in fact, I am an agnostic/more leaning towards atheist, really), my grips with the church are for different reasons. More for their suppression of science, hypocrisy, corruption, and greed. Nevertheless, we turn to them for weddings, baptisms, funerals, etcs.


In the past, the United States was hostile towards Italian immigrants. Nevertheless, I consider myself to be patriotic, and proud to have been born here.
 
Belgian history starts with Julius Caesar. He was a very ambitious man but also a mass murderer.
I don't know how much is true of what he had written in De bello Gallico, but he was boasting how many tribes he beated and murdered.
The Italians loved his cruel story. It made him very popular.
It was a war he had initiated himself. He only needed an excuse, the movement of the Helvetii.
It was all planned. He didn't conquer Gaul for the sake of Rome, but for his own glory.
Millions died for his glory, not only in Gaul.
From then on Rome was governed by ambitious men who tried to keep the mass happy and ignorant with panem et circenses.

I wonder if Caesar's assassination actually saved his military reputation?
He had planned to attack the Parthians, who had already defeated Crassus and Mark Antony.
 
It is the same reason why people admire Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan, or Andrew Jackson, or Napoleon, or the Indo-Europeans, or the Vikings, or Action movies, or heavy metal, or wealthy and powerful captains of industry, or sports teams, and fighters, so on and so on.

My compliments. You rose right above the ethnic baiting and presented the reality.

I think I might have been more direct. When I get smacked I hit back twice as hard. I'm afraid I left the teachings of Christ behind a long time ago.

"After the Berlin Conference of 1884 the 905,000 square miles of the Belgian Congo [now the Democratic Republic of the Congo ] became the personal property of King Leopold II of Belgium. (Their governing body thought it wasn't worth the money and effort, much like the Romans didn't think going further north was worth it.)

His genocidal exploitation of the territory, particularly the rubber trade, caused many deaths and much suffering. Murder and mutilation were common.

Failure to meet the rubber collection quotas was punishable by death. The Force Publique were required to provide a hand of their victims as proof when they had shot and killed someone, as it was believed that they would otherwise use the munitions for hunting food.As a consequence, the rubber quotas were in part paid off in chopped-off hands. Sometimes the hands were collected by the soldiers of the Force Publique, sometimes by the villages themselves. There were even small wars where villages attacked neighboring villages to gather hands, since their rubber quotas were too unrealistic to fill.


There are stories of parents being forced to watch as the hands of feet of their young children were hacked as punishment for parents not meeting their rubber quota.


Under the control of Leopold II of Belgium numerous crimes against humanity were committed upon the indigenous Africans of Central Africa. (And I don't think they were all foreign mercenaries carrying out these policies.)

The Germans were worse.

The Herero and Namaqua Genocide in German South-West Africa (present-day Namibia) occurred between 1904 and 1907. Eighty percent of the Herero population and 50 percent of the Nama population were killed in a brutal scorched earth campaign led by German General Lothar von Trotha. Between 24,000 and 100,000 Herero perished along with 10,000 Nama.


A copy of Trotha’s Extermination Order survives in the Botswana National Archives. The order states “every Herero, with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot.

I will no longer accept women or children, I will drive them back to their people [to die in the desert] or let them be shot at.” Olusoga and Erichsen write: “It is an almost unique document: an explicit, written declaration of intent to commit genocide”.

These mass killings were named as the first example of a 20th-century genocide in the 1985 Whitaker Report, commissioned but never adopted by the now defunct United Nations subcommittee ECOSOC.

https://africanquarters.com/forgott...t-day Namibia) occurred between 1904 and 1907.

I wonder how many Belgian nationals marched in the streets in protest against this barbarity in the late 19th and early 20th century? Some how, though, people living 2,000 years ago were supposed to be more WOKE and totally against conquering other countries???

Is it somehow different because these were black people?

At least once the Belgic tribes were subdued they could become Roman citizens and all the benefits of civilization were theirs.

Something tells me that isn't how the the Belgians treated the indigenous people of the Congo even after the national government took control.

People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


 
My compliments. You rose right above the ethnic baiting and presented the reality.

I think I might have been more direct. When I get smacked I hit back twice as hard. I'm afraid I left the teachings of Christ behind a long time ago.

"After the Berlin Conference of 1884 the 905,000 square miles of the Belgian Congo [now the Democratic Republic of the Congo ] became the personal property of King Leopold II of Belgium. (Their governing body thought it wasn't worth the money and effort, much like the Romans didn't think going further north was worth it.)

His genocidal exploitation of the territory, particularly the rubber trade, caused many deaths and much suffering. Murder and mutilation were common.
Failure to meet the rubber collection quotas was punishable by death. The Force Publique were required to provide a hand of their victims as proof when they had shot and killed someone, as it was believed that they would otherwise use the munitions for hunting food.As a consequence, the rubber quotas were in part paid off in chopped-off hands. Sometimes the hands were collected by the soldiers of the Force Publique, sometimes by the villages themselves. There were even small wars where villages attacked neighboring villages to gather hands, since their rubber quotas were too unrealistic to fill.
There are stories of parents being forced to watch as the hands of feet of their young children were hacked as punishment for parents not meeting their rubber quota.
Under the control of Leopold II of Belgium numerous crimes against humanity were committed upon the indigenous Africans of Central Africa.

The Germans were worse.

The Herero and Namaqua Genocide in German South-West Africa (present-day Namibia) occurred between 1904 and 1907. Eighty percent of the Herero population and 50 percent of the Nama population were killed in a brutal scorched earth campaign led by German General Lothar von Trotha. Between 24,000 and 100,000 Herero perished along with 10,000 Nama.


A copy of Trotha’s Extermination Order survives in the Botswana National Archives. The order states “every Herero, with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot.
I will no longer accept women or children, I will drive them back to their people [to die in the desert] or let them be shot at.” Olusoga and Erichsen write: “It is an almost unique document: an explicit, written declaration of intent to commit genocide”.
These mass killings were named as the first example of a 20th-century genocide in the 1985 Whitaker Report, commissioned but never adopted by the now defunct United Nations subcommittee ECOSOC.

https://africanquarters.com/forgott...t-day Namibia) occurred between 1904 and 1907.

I wonder how many Belgian nationals marched in the streets in protest against this barbarity in the late 19th and early 20th century?

Was it somehow different because these were black people?

At least once the Belgic tribes were subdued they could become Roman citizens and get all the benefits of civilization were theirs.

Something tells me that isn't how the the Belgians treated the indigenous people of the Congo even after the national government took control.

People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


@Vallicanus,

True, but Giulio Cesare was neither Crassus nor Marc Anthony, who didn't do so well against Augustus, who wasn't the General his father was. (Adopted son...actually great nephew)



Thanks Angela,

Indeed, it is also why I strongly dislike the woke ideology. All people have a dark side to their history, and I find it annoying that victimology has infected society to such a degree.

I have always adored the Roman Empire, since I was a child. I get annoyed when people try to minimize or unjustly vilify it. All of the great powers that have preceded it, have tried to emulate it for a reason. Because the contributions are undeniable.
 

The Germans were worse.

The Herero and Namaqua Genocide in German South-West Africa (present-day Namibia) occurred between 1904 and 1907. Eighty percent of the Herero population and 50 percent of the Nama population were killed in a brutal scorched earth campaign led by German General Lothar von Trotha. Between 24,000 and 100,000 Herero perished along with 10,000 Nama.

I don't think the situation in Belgian Congo and South West Africa were directly comparable, because in one case it was the slave like labour, profit orientation, corruption and brutality of all groups associated. Including the locals which sometimes just abused a system and the upper colonial ranks just looked away or were not able to control it. Whereas in the later case of South West Africa, it was a brutal guerilla war. The Germans simply cut off the rebels from water and food, since they were not able to control them otherwise in the huge, hostile terrain. The rebels started with extremely brutal acts against the local Europeans, men, women and children, truly horrible acts, which incited brutality on both sides naturally. So what they did was not profit oriented, it was not simply brutal and numb, it was the reaction to a specific situation. That way they could safe their own lifes, shorten the war and pacify the region. Guerilla wars of that kind, especially if they start like that, with the extremely inhumane and most brutal acts against the local Europeans, are always nasty, that's just as it is. Such wars can be led differently, but only if you want to lose more of your own civilians, soldiers and probably the whole war. it was not a deliberate genocidal act, because otherwise these tribes would no longer exist. We now have this attitude of "the civilised side" is always wrong, even if it just retaliates, whereas the "suppressed" are always right, even if they are more brutal in their methods (Marxist interpretation of reality).

The Herero started their attacks without provocation, in a situation in which the local civilian European settlers were completely unprotected. You can read up about it in the Wikipedia article:
The Herero revolted in early 1904, killing between 123 and 150 German settlers, as well as seven Boers and three women

A Herero warrior interviewed by German authorities in 1895 had described his people's traditional way of dealing with suspected cattle rustlers, a treatment which, during the uprising, was regularly extended to German soldiers and civilians, "We came across a few Khoisan whom of course we killed. I myself helped to kill one of them. First we cut off his ears, saying, 'You will never hear Herero cattle lowing.' Then we cut off his nose, saying, 'Never again shall you smell Herero cattle.' And then we cut off his lips, saying, 'You shall never again taste Herero cattle.' And finally we cut his throat."[49]

According to Robert Gaudi, "Leutwein knew that the wrath of the German Empire was about to fall on them and hoped to soften the blow. He sent desperate messages to Chief Samuel Maherero in hopes of negotiating an end to the war. In this, Leutwein acted on his own, heedless of the prevailing mood in Germany, which called for bloody revenge."[50]

The Hereros, however, were emboldened by their success and had come to believe that, "the Germans were too cowardly to fight in the open," and rejected Leutwein's offers of peace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide

So the whole story had two aspects: Military necessity and retaliation. Its not like the Germans were more brutal than the locals, not at all. The many men, even those which killed and tortured themselves, which could be interviewed afterwards, speak for themselves and the will of the Germans for a true "genocide".

Looking at what Caesar did in his campaign, he is more comparable to what the Germans did in Africa, because he too oftentimes offered friendly terms at first, and only when leaders and tribes betrayed him or acted very gruesome against his own people, he changed the pace and started to eliminate the resistance. Like in one case, he offered one tribe peace the first time, then they rebelled, but were subdued, and again got a favourable peace. But the third time, when they massacred the local Romans in a most brutal way and were stubborn, until they had no choice but to capitulate a third time, after Caeasr forces lost many men, material and time, they were all slaughtered or sold into slavery as a whole, to make an example of it for all of Gallia. One could question what he did, but at least going by the sources, that seems to be a reasonable approach.
That's also why some Gallic tribes even profited from the Roman conquest, while others were practically annihilated, sometimes, or even most of the time, after having breaking off and rebelling against the Romans the 2nd, 3rd or even 4th time.

Of course one could question the presence of colonial or any conquering force in the first place, but that's not the point, because all people did that at different times and circumstances. Its about how you treat subdued people "if they behave" and how you treat them "if they don't" and you simply have to protect your own soldiers and civilians. Like in various uprisings, also against the Romans, there were most brutal acts against Romans, soldiers and civilians. One prominent example is Boudiccas rebellion, which tortured and mutiliated tens of thousands of Roman men, women and children to death.

For me it makes a big difference, probably the biggest, talking about humanity and decency, whether you just kill enemies, or torture them to death in the most gruesome ways and let them suffer for a prolonged period of time, probably even with a sadistic pleasure. Men like Casear could be brutal and goal-oriented, but they were rarely if ever gruesome and sadistic. Which I think is a good quality, especially in his time, in the social and moral context he lived in.
 
Thanks Angela,

Indeed, it is also why I strongly dislike the woke ideology. All people have a dark side to their history, and I find it annoying that victimology has infected society to such a degree.

I have always adored the Roman Empire, since I was a child. I get annoyed when people try to minimize or unjustly vilify it. All of the great powers that have preceded it, have tried to emulate it for a reason. Because the contributions are undeniable.

Indeed, as Razib Khan succinctly put it in his substack piece (and he certainly isn't Italian), the Romans came, saw, and left nothing behind in other countries in Europe...except for Western Civilization.

There's a reason that English schoolboys at private schools had to take at least Latin, if not both Latin and Greek up until the present day, and had to translate every word of Caesar's writings: they're the blueprint for how to create a lasting Empire. No one else has managed it, because no one else knew how to co-opt the loyalties of conquered peoples or had any wish to do so. They wanted every conquered person to either be a slave or to remain forever second class citizens.

To be clear: I don't believe in conquering other countries. I wish it were a thing of the past, but I have a feeling it isn't, and I have a feeling the treatment of the conquered in the future will be very different indeed. Should it ever come about, which I sincerely hope it never will, I can't see all Americans, should it be a Sino-American war and America losing, being made honorary Chinese citizens and getting equal representation in their governing bodies. :) Hell, look at the poor Uighers, whom everyone is too afraid of China to defend.
 
Indeed, as Razib Khan succinctly put it in his substack piece (and he certainly isn't Italian), the Romans came, saw, and left nothing behind in other countries in Europe...except for Western Civilization.

There's a reason that English schoolboys at private schools had to take at least Latin, if not both Latin and Greek up until the present day, and had to translate every word of Caesar's writings: they're the blueprint for how to create a lasting Empire. No one else has managed it, because no one else knew how to co-opt the loyalties of conquered peoples or had any wish to do so. They wanted every conquered person to either be a slave or to remain forever second class citizens.

To be clear: I don't believe in conquering other countries. I wish it were a thing of the past, but I have a feeling it isn't, and I have a feeling the treatment of the conquered in the future will be very different indeed. Should it ever come about, which I sincerely hope it never will, I can't see all Americans, should it be a Sino-American war and America losing, being made honorary Chinese citizens and getting equal representation in their governing bodies. :) Hell, look at the poor Uighers, whom everyone is too afraid of China to defend.

Part of the reason why I feel an affinity for the United States is also that it is the spiritual successor of the Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. At least I hope it remains as such, and not twisted into a shadow of it's former-self, given the social crisis we face today.
 
To be clear: I don't believe in conquering other countries. I wish it were a thing of the past, but I have a feeling it isn't, and I have a feeling the treatment of the conquered in the future will be very different indeed. Should it ever come about, which I sincerely hope it never will, I can't see all Americans, should it be a Sino-American war and America losing, being made honorary Chinese citizens and getting equal representation in their governing bodies. :) Hell, look at the poor Uighers, whom everyone is too afraid of China to defend.

The Uighurs were even privileged in the past, were allowed to get more children and a good representation in the political organisation of the province and state. However, it was expected of them to assimilate and, on the long run, just embrace, generally speaking, the national Chinese identity.
The problems came about when, exactly at the time of beginning ethnic Uighur resistance to full scale assimilation, began an infiltration of the Islamic part of this resistance by foreign Salafists. Like local Uighurs said, it is not in their local, ethnic tradition that women being fully covered in black scarves, or that the interpretation of Islam being that radical. But right in the ethnic conflict, the Islamist indoctrination through foreign agents started. The result were, again, most brutal attacks against Chinese civilians, which are just completely unacceptable for any nation caring for its own people. What followed was an escalation on both sides, and contrary to some weaker states, the Chinese state didn't give in, in the face of radical Islamism, but escalated itself. That's a different strategy from Russia, in which Putin allied up with local Islamists of the somewhat more moderate kind to just execute indirect rule in what I may call a fragile peace with an expiration date. China is strong enough and thinks on the long term, so they don't accept something like that but work for a lasting solution to the Islamist problem. Whether they succeed or not, will be interesting to watch.
But you have to consider that, just like in other areas of the world, there is no good way to negotiate or make peace with hardcore Islamists, nowhere. What others tried, it didn't work out, nowhere. Religious extremism is a problem for any kind of modern state and society and the Islamic state in Syria & Iraq just showed the world what kind of "humanism" they practise. Tibetans were a special case, they could have been left alone, because of their peaceful and isolated way of doing things, even if it was a theocratic-autocratic, most conservative, in a negative way, state. But Islamism is different, as it is more aggressive and expansive. Like Russia even gave Chechens their Islamic state, but they just kept attacking the neighbouring provinces, using that state as a base. That says a lot about how things would turn out, if China gets weak and would break apart, because it would suffer a worse fate than Russia with the break up of the Soviet Union, I'd guess. And constant terrorism and attacks from Islamists in the Uighur provinces are simply no option for the current leadership.
 
Thanks Angela,

Indeed, it is also why I strongly dislike the woke ideology. All people have a dark side to their history, and I find it annoying that victimology has infected society to such a degree.

I have always adored the Roman Empire, since I was a child. I get annoyed when people try to minimize or unjustly vilify it. All of the great powers that have preceded it, have tried to emulate it for a reason. Because the contributions are undeniable.


Surely for you I'm a 'woke' (and leftish) man. I never admired "great" figures and "great" states too much. I prefer people like Gandhi, personally.
I don't like more what you call victimology, because too often, the victims are only the loosers of a cruel game which they would have liked to be the winners. I think the famous "memory duty" is valuable for the whole humanity (or inhumanity?). But too much "memory duty" becomes quickly lost of time, I prefer new ways to built future in a more "fairplay" manner; it's my point.
It isn't without link with what I call the "Hypra-sionism" question of today in Palestine. Past is past, everyone his responsability, but this principle ought not to obliterate future in the region. Someones reproach to others the fact they are trying to come back to recent past but they forget they refer themselves (sionists) to a very far past without value for a lot of others; whoever they are. And thinking all this is in part the result of foreign selfproclamed" great democratic" states action...
 
Surely for you I'm a 'woke' (and leftish) man. I never admired "great" figures and "great" states too much. I prefer people like Gandhi, personally.
I don't like more what you call victimology, because too often, the victims are only the loosers of a cruel game which they would have liked to be the winners. I think the famous "memory duty" is valuable for the whole humanity (or inhumanity?). But too much "memory duty" becomes quickly lost of time, I prefer new ways to built future in a more "fairplay" manner; it's my point.
It isn't without link with what I call the "Hypra-sionism" question of today in Palestine. Past is past, everyone his responsability, but this principle ought not to obliterate future in the region. Someones reproach to others the fact they are trying to come back to recent past but they forget they refer themselves (sionists) to a very far past without value for a lot of others; whoever they are. And thinking all this is in part the result of foreign selfproclamed" great democratic" states action...

Moesan, being "woke" and being left wing can be exclusive from one another. I do not think you are woke, it is not one in the same as being leftist.
 
This is another manifestation of woke-ness,

Here we have a classics professor that wants to stop universities from teaching about Ancient Greece, and Rome. Because he thinks it is a part of white supremacy, etc:

https://theweek.com/articles/965573/cancel-classics

Again, this is what woke-ness is, it is essentially neo-maoism, they want to erase the past, and rebuild it into something else.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 18983 times.

Back
Top