There were many Roman civil wars between 91 BC and 31 BC: The Social war (91-88), the Sullan wars (88-72), the Cataline Conspiracy (63-62), the Caesarean wars (49-36), and the Final war of the Republic (32-31). The Sullan and Caesarean wars are usually divided into many different civil wars, some of which overlap. That's why I combined them. In the 60 years between 91 and 31, 34 of those years saw civil war.
If by "a roman obama" some of these comments mean 'coward' I will vote for a 'coward' and let the war mongering nazis destroy themselves. some of us still value peace and good will toward men kind.
It's rare that you'll find a modern Tiberius nowdays. I think world leaders should learn from him..specially the Philippine Senate!! ha ha ha...they're are exactly the replica of the Roman Senate!!! We still haven't learn our lesson from history...tsk tsk tsk
@rahya2008 Tiberius was the prototypical demagogue. There's no way of knowing if he ACTUALLY cared about the people of Rome. He used the masses to further his own personal gain and also used them to take revenge on his enemies. Tiberius, his brother Gaius, and his father-in-law Pulcher headed the agrarian commission, and it was corrupt. They profited financially from it.
@arbitrary1234567890 The acts of Tiberius signal the beginning of the end of the Republic, and the story of Gaius is basically the same as the story of Tiberius, except that the acts of Gaius were larger in scope. For example, Tiberius championed for the landless and disenfranchised people of Rome, but Gaius championed for all Italians.
i think people like him are just made to look in power to be a fall guy for the power loving old men who really run it,when there plans dont go right.
I don't understand why The Roman Senate considered this to be a "new" treaty. It was just a continuation of the old one by his father....? Why would Rome not want allies they could use as canon fodder for a shield buffer in a new "pax romana" ? The reasons why the senate rejected the peace treaty still don't make any sense to me...am I missing something that the BBC has forgot to put in this historical footnote?
u don't go back on your word just as a man! but on top of that it was made in the name of the god's!.......u don't have to know much about rome to know this will end bad.
This is why the Republic became an Empire. The Senate had their rule for 500 years, their incompetence led to powerful dictators who used their bickering to strengthen themselves. First was Sulla, then Marius, Crassus, Pompey, Ceasar, etc
"Political pawns of the senate"? Senators', maybe, but not senate's, surely. The senate had opposing groups and senators which would support their respective tribunes.
Rome was hardly a democracy, the Senate was an exclusive body made up of the pratician class. Only a few notable exceptions exist in history of plebians rising to the Senate. Cicero and Marius are two.
It never was supposed to be a democracy. Also there is evidence to support that in 397(399?) following the sack of Rome by Gauls, and the murder of the entire Senate, that the plebian (soldier) class was integral in repopulating the ancient chamber. Grown Men adopted into patrician classes, and the Tribune of the people as the defacto Dictator in the rebuilding of ROme and the Latin Leauge revolt which immediatly follows. Although your point is broadly accurate. Stability not liberty endured
Empire ruled by the emperor only would be the best government I think. If he is a good man/women.
But all people is talking about today is religion bullshit, christianity and islam have fought from the beginning of time, where is the so called "peace"?
The world should be ruled by one empire, who is ruled by 1 righteous leader.
imo the most stable society would be one with complete liberty, allow people do to what they want just as long as what they are doing does not effect others. Allow people to believe in whatever they want (I'm not that big on religion but I respect peoples beliefs) just as long as they are not forcing it onto me or anyone else, trying to get us to join. Just using religion as an example.
There are very few things that a person could do that would have no effect on another. For the few things that a person could do without affecting others, those things are already allowed I think. Please name an example of a liberty you think should be allowed on the basis that it does not affect others and is not already in place, and I will understand,
um dude u realise the world we live in today is like that, its just ppl are corupt and biast the government is effectively perfect its just ppl dont do the right thing and bend rules and cheat and bribe thats why the world is like this not cause we cant make effective rules
ModerSverige,lets use YouTube to make a worldwide cyber-election on how we want a worldwide empire to be.Mohamed & Jesus can be elected,a Socialist candidate,Democratic,Communist,Anarchy,Free Drugs,Free Love,perverts,criminals,Hindi,Buddhist.Etc(The Jews won't be in because they don't convert forcibly or peacably).We'll do a gladiator thing,giving rest between fights.The one who comes out will rule the world.
most people would prefer a good stable government that will secure them..
i'm not promoting communism and dictatorship but i'm not saying democracy is the best government we have today.. i some people would like to change unequality, rich and poverty gap, change our daily routine that makes life suxs... its fictional but its not impossible.. historical emperors last long because their taught men.. even if their corrupt or insane
Webnet. I am Australian but my wife is Vietnamese. I was of the opinion that Socialism and Communists were not good till I met her and stayed a length of time in Vietnam. But when you see the law and order and organisation within that country its quite impressive how they get things done despite recovering from years of war and economic blockades. Meanwhile USA and other western countries waste millions on elections to end up with George W Bush and the like. You may be onto something
the most tiring thing about democracy is to many people run the government but not all have the same mind and motives.. some are good but most are evil, and they have the power and muscle to do things.. the only thing about communism and dictatorship is they keep the people, the government, the rich and poor heirchy intact.. one ideology, one direction.. change the world either idea or use force to do so by id if ur a rich social climber guy who pissed the poor.. ur a dead man..
thats why there are emperors of rome.. the aristocrats and noblemens corruption gave rise to the emperors.. emperors maybe evil but atleast the people benefit from the spoils they get.. emperors were born or created to make the senate intact and see it has limited powers.. even democracy like the roman democracy has its corruption and failure.. the only good thing about it is u get to speak ur mine they're corrupt.. in dictatorship and communism.. u'll get a firing squad instead..
man i hate those roman aristocrats and noble too an there get no Honor to the poor people of Rome and there care only the Rich's people of Rome that why the roman empire fall i guess and if people like Tiberius Gracchus still runny Rome empire it might still be around even to day but that history for now
Not really. Tiberius was an independent, Obama is the representative of a powerful political force. Comparing the two is like comparing the power of a privately owned coffee shop to Starbucks
Populares ("favoring the people", singular popularis) were aristocratic leaders in the late Roman Republic who tended to use the people's assemblies and tribunate in an effort to break the stranglehold of the Senate on political power. They were opposed by the conservative optimates.
Yes, I believe he was one of the first Populares and contrary to the later appearing Caesar or Clodius he was a populares out of idealism not oppurtunism.
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn And if Tiberius is the Roman Obama (hopefully not murdered in the senate like Tiberius) then what does that make Scipio? The Saddam of Rome towards non-Romans?
@Reals1111 If Tiberius was the Roman Saddam Hussein, then what was Scipio? Tiberius certainly didn't go far like Saddam in killing fellow countrymen. That only began about 30-50 years after his death starting with Marius and Sulla.
Scipio was more like a douche, not like Saddam, never speak il of a great man. He helped his countrymen did not kill them that was propaganda from the evil Kurds and Shitits.
@Reals1111 Well I doubt the Kurds that survived Saddam mustard gas attacks agree with that. The only reason the United States didn't openly condemn that act was because Saddam was involved in the Iran-Iraq war and the Americans didn't forget about the Iranian hostage crises.
The Kurds where not killed. Saddam was a brilliant man. See what he did to prove a point was that he evacuated all the Kurds from the village and gave them new homes. Then he in their stead put convicted criminals there to be used during the gas attack. See he did not want to kill innocent people so this is what he did.
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn not really because like tiberius obama's reform bills are similare and he is trying to help the american people unlike those teabaggers
@Plotinus2112 I look at people commenting on Plotinus, and feel nothing but pity; your comments all come 2 or 3 years after he made the remark, how easy it is to judge a man's comments 2, 5 10 years later. Why comment at all?
Tiberius is the hero Rome deserves but not the one it needs, troll lol lol.
PantherTankOwns 3 weeks ago
Tiberius was the ONLY guy who looked like someone who ISNT Roman in history books
supercoolmanikcool1 3 weeks ago
gotta love the kissing the baby part... straight after the narrator says "politcal pawn" lmao
berflaberab2 2 months ago
Claudia is cute ;)
silence659 5 months ago
a civil war was inetiable
lewisgunner1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lewisgunner1 "a civil war was inetiable"
There were many Roman civil wars between 91 BC and 31 BC: The Social war (91-88), the Sullan wars (88-72), the Cataline Conspiracy (63-62), the Caesarean wars (49-36), and the Final war of the Republic (32-31). The Sullan and Caesarean wars are usually divided into many different civil wars, some of which overlap. That's why I combined them. In the 60 years between 91 and 31, 34 of those years saw civil war.
KayBeeEee1983 5 months ago
If by "a roman obama" some of these comments mean 'coward' I will vote for a 'coward' and let the war mongering nazis destroy themselves. some of us still value peace and good will toward men kind.
cuzcatlan36 8 months ago
No obama is a dumbass
BOWENSblog 9 months ago
@BOWENSblog you racist
BarbarianBadAss 7 months ago
Sigh why didnt alexander own these guy's, they left a bunch of old pedofiles rules such a strong nation...
Dre020 9 months ago
@Dre020 you do realize that pedophilia was in greece and rome for hundreds of years right?
BarbarianBadAss 7 months ago
It looks like they went out of their way to make the lower classes racially ambiguous... interesting.
AemiliaPaulla 11 months ago
It's rare that you'll find a modern Tiberius nowdays. I think world leaders should learn from him..specially the Philippine Senate!! ha ha ha...they're are exactly the replica of the Roman Senate!!! We still haven't learn our lesson from history...tsk tsk tsk
rahya2008 1 year ago 2
@rahya2008 to right mate
frank1320 1 year ago
@rahya2008 Tiberius was the prototypical demagogue. There's no way of knowing if he ACTUALLY cared about the people of Rome. He used the masses to further his own personal gain and also used them to take revenge on his enemies. Tiberius, his brother Gaius, and his father-in-law Pulcher headed the agrarian commission, and it was corrupt. They profited financially from it.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 interesting point!
berflaberab2 5 months ago
that guy from the senate sounds like yoda
lewisgunner1 1 year ago
Where's his brother Gaius who outdid him
arbitrary1234567890 1 year ago
@arbitrary1234567890 The acts of Tiberius signal the beginning of the end of the Republic, and the story of Gaius is basically the same as the story of Tiberius, except that the acts of Gaius were larger in scope. For example, Tiberius championed for the landless and disenfranchised people of Rome, but Gaius championed for all Italians.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
The guy who plays Tiberius is smexy
MysteryChocolate 1 year ago
this is the same world we live in today nothing change...........animal human been .....
hakim229 1 year ago
i think people like him are just made to look in power to be a fall guy for the power loving old men who really run it,when there plans dont go right.
anahel1231 1 year ago
is this david warner who plays claudius pulcher?
MoveOverCasanova 1 year ago
i lov tibirius(dnt know how to spell his name lol)
who plays him??plz someone tell me..hes so hot lol!!!hahaha
GO TIBIRIUS!!!!!!!!lol it was cute wen he kissed the baby's forhead!!!!!!<33 lol
lgrules1998 1 year ago
spain so the romans did go to my ancestor's country not just for weapons
lewisguner1 1 year ago
I don't understand why The Roman Senate considered this to be a "new" treaty. It was just a continuation of the old one by his father....? Why would Rome not want allies they could use as canon fodder for a shield buffer in a new "pax romana" ? The reasons why the senate rejected the peace treaty still don't make any sense to me...am I missing something that the BBC has forgot to put in this historical footnote?
GILR8 1 year ago
They betrayed them, broke the treaty by fighting them once again, but then made the treaty again to save their selves
Cokecakepopcorn 1 year ago
8:44 is a mistake 133 bc? LOL
613bo 1 year ago
u don't go back on your word just as a man! but on top of that it was made in the name of the god's!.......u don't have to know much about rome to know this will end bad.
freemikeg 1 year ago
'you know my daughter claudia'
'FUCK YEAH JACKPOT'
paratrooper6 2 years ago
LOL!!!!!!!!
613bo 1 year ago
even better ware cludias ass out
613bo 1 year ago
This is why the Republic became an Empire. The Senate had their rule for 500 years, their incompetence led to powerful dictators who used their bickering to strengthen themselves. First was Sulla, then Marius, Crassus, Pompey, Ceasar, etc
FearAcademy 2 years ago 4
Watch popular TVShows at W W W . TV-Vide . NET
kailamichaela 2 years ago
I liked the Bambi-hunt.
2242bzo 2 years ago
This is good, but it's a bit hollywood. Really bent the truth a bit.
landis69 2 years ago
"Political pawns of the senate"? Senators', maybe, but not senate's, surely. The senate had opposing groups and senators which would support their respective tribunes.
UserNameForYeeTube 2 years ago
There is a gap between this and the 4th one
ollieproductions1 2 years ago
Why is his fucking mother... acting like a bitch
pseudomonos 2 years ago 9
why have you made 2 series but labelled them the exact same? make them different so people know which ones are which
SimmyDOTuk 2 years ago 45
i know
lewisguner1 1 year ago
@SimmyDOTuk Like: "Ancient Rome: Revolution 5: The Rise And Fall Of An Empire" would be helpful.
paulyhart 1 year ago
@SimmyDOTuk life is hard son
wood1155 1 year ago
i'm hearing PIZZA! PIZZA! PIZZA! PIZZA!
MrFirstKnight 2 years ago 7
I've read that Tiberius's new wife would call him by a special name "Biggus Dickus".
RasMajnouni 2 years ago 20
hahahahaha!
steveharrismetalgod 2 years ago 3
Wrong it was Nautious Maximus!
sollibop 2 years ago 3
And he called her, " Incontinentus".
WolfgangHolzmann 1 year ago
@RasMajnouni By his wife you mean Incontinentia Buttocks?
ahmedeox 1 year ago
More like Cry-berius
PrinceDirt 2 years ago
George Washington was a cry-baby too. There's no progress without pain.
vampyre88 2 years ago 11
Rome was hardly a democracy, the Senate was an exclusive body made up of the pratician class. Only a few notable exceptions exist in history of plebians rising to the Senate. Cicero and Marius are two.
EliasDaemonwing 2 years ago 7
Cicero was an aristocrat
LedLumba93 2 years ago
It never was supposed to be a democracy. Also there is evidence to support that in 397(399?) following the sack of Rome by Gauls, and the murder of the entire Senate, that the plebian (soldier) class was integral in repopulating the ancient chamber. Grown Men adopted into patrician classes, and the Tribune of the people as the defacto Dictator in the rebuilding of ROme and the Latin Leauge revolt which immediatly follows. Although your point is broadly accurate. Stability not liberty endured
ScipioPokerus 2 years ago
Ha ha kissing babies. somethings never change.
bigsky780 2 years ago
missing part 4
skullwolf13 3 years ago
no there are 2 documenteries with the same name
manbearpig2694 2 years ago 3
ha! he kissed a baby!
revengeofcleveland 3 years ago
Representative Democracy is rubbish, follow the system of Switzerland, the System of Direct Democracy!
DarthFanta 3 years ago 2
Switzerland is actually socialist.
MrKevMan 3 years ago
How about we rule ourselves and stop depending on corrupt politicians to do so. 6.5 billion rule by less than 1%. WTF!
grnpoop 3 years ago 2
Empire ruled by the emperor only would be the best government I think. If he is a good man/women.
But all people is talking about today is religion bullshit, christianity and islam have fought from the beginning of time, where is the so called "peace"?
The world should be ruled by one empire, who is ruled by 1 righteous leader.
Killare2 3 years ago
who defines righteous?and islam has been around only since about 700 A.D..an empire would never work
megalomaniacal33 3 years ago 2
an empire without relgion, that are supporting human justice, and support sience insted war would be a very good one.
ModerSverige 3 years ago
imo the most stable society would be one with complete liberty, allow people do to what they want just as long as what they are doing does not effect others. Allow people to believe in whatever they want (I'm not that big on religion but I respect peoples beliefs) just as long as they are not forcing it onto me or anyone else, trying to get us to join. Just using religion as an example.
SSKaizer 3 years ago
There are very few things that a person could do that would have no effect on another. For the few things that a person could do without affecting others, those things are already allowed I think. Please name an example of a liberty you think should be allowed on the basis that it does not affect others and is not already in place, and I will understand,
onesevenfiveone 3 years ago
um dude u realise the world we live in today is like that, its just ppl are corupt and biast the government is effectively perfect its just ppl dont do the right thing and bend rules and cheat and bribe thats why the world is like this not cause we cant make effective rules
dizzy69er 3 years ago
ModerSverige,lets use YouTube to make a worldwide cyber-election on how we want a worldwide empire to be.Mohamed & Jesus can be elected,a Socialist candidate,Democratic,Communist,Anarchy,Free Drugs,Free Love,perverts,criminals,Hindi,Buddhist.Etc(The Jews won't be in because they don't convert forcibly or peacably).We'll do a gladiator thing,giving rest between fights.The one who comes out will rule the world.
RasMajnouni 1 year ago
most people would prefer a good stable government that will secure them..
i'm not promoting communism and dictatorship but i'm not saying democracy is the best government we have today.. i some people would like to change unequality, rich and poverty gap, change our daily routine that makes life suxs... its fictional but its not impossible.. historical emperors last long because their taught men.. even if their corrupt or insane
Webnet123 3 years ago
Webnet. I am Australian but my wife is Vietnamese. I was of the opinion that Socialism and Communists were not good till I met her and stayed a length of time in Vietnam. But when you see the law and order and organisation within that country its quite impressive how they get things done despite recovering from years of war and economic blockades. Meanwhile USA and other western countries waste millions on elections to end up with George W Bush and the like. You may be onto something
aeonflux67 3 years ago
the most tiring thing about democracy is to many people run the government but not all have the same mind and motives.. some are good but most are evil, and they have the power and muscle to do things.. the only thing about communism and dictatorship is they keep the people, the government, the rich and poor heirchy intact.. one ideology, one direction.. change the world either idea or use force to do so by id if ur a rich social climber guy who pissed the poor.. ur a dead man..
Webnet123 3 years ago 2
thats why there are emperors of rome.. the aristocrats and noblemens corruption gave rise to the emperors.. emperors maybe evil but atleast the people benefit from the spoils they get.. emperors were born or created to make the senate intact and see it has limited powers.. even democracy like the roman democracy has its corruption and failure.. the only good thing about it is u get to speak ur mine they're corrupt.. in dictatorship and communism.. u'll get a firing squad instead..
Webnet123 3 years ago
WOOO YEAA BABY!! WOOT WOOT BABY!!
klaifth 3 years ago
dont ever mess with jupitor
moakley 3 years ago
Nothings changed in politics or socity since rome I'm starting to wounder if anyone's ever experienced democracy maby it's as big a lie as communism.
kingsman565 3 years ago
man i hate those roman aristocrats and noble too an there get no Honor to the poor people of Rome and there care only the Rich's people of Rome that why the roman empire fall i guess and if people like Tiberius Gracchus still runny Rome empire it might still be around even to day but that history for now
kelscri 3 years ago
The Obama of Rome
Plotinus2112 3 years ago
Not really. Tiberius was an independent, Obama is the representative of a powerful political force. Comparing the two is like comparing the power of a privately owned coffee shop to Starbucks
LadyAmaltheaUnicorn 3 years ago 57
Gaius Octavian then?
Luxaquitaine 3 years ago
Populares ("favoring the people", singular popularis) were aristocratic leaders in the late Roman Republic who tended to use the people's assemblies and tribunate in an effort to break the stranglehold of the Senate on political power. They were opposed by the conservative optimates.
wasnt tiberius one of those lot?
revengeofcleveland 3 years ago 2
Optimistic term for a demagogue, no?
AemiliaPaulla 3 years ago
Yes, I believe he was one of the first Populares and contrary to the later appearing Caesar or Clodius he was a populares out of idealism not oppurtunism.
Mikethemechanic654 2 years ago
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn He obviously didn't mean Tiberius.
Panax07 1 year ago
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn In fact comparing the two is so pointless it can only be the act of a mind that is somewhat lacking in imagination
ezelite 1 year ago
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn And if Tiberius is the Roman Obama (hopefully not murdered in the senate like Tiberius) then what does that make Scipio? The Saddam of Rome towards non-Romans?
3baxcb 11 months ago
@3baxcb
What do you mean?Tiberious is the Roman Saddam Hussein a champions of the common people who stood up to powers greater then himself. A hero.
Reals1111 10 months ago
@Reals1111 If Tiberius was the Roman Saddam Hussein, then what was Scipio? Tiberius certainly didn't go far like Saddam in killing fellow countrymen. That only began about 30-50 years after his death starting with Marius and Sulla.
3baxcb 10 months ago
@3baxcb
Scipio was more like a douche, not like Saddam, never speak il of a great man. He helped his countrymen did not kill them that was propaganda from the evil Kurds and Shitits.
Reals1111 10 months ago
@Reals1111 Well I doubt the Kurds that survived Saddam mustard gas attacks agree with that. The only reason the United States didn't openly condemn that act was because Saddam was involved in the Iran-Iraq war and the Americans didn't forget about the Iranian hostage crises.
3baxcb 10 months ago
@3baxcb
The Kurds where not killed. Saddam was a brilliant man. See what he did to prove a point was that he evacuated all the Kurds from the village and gave them new homes. Then he in their stead put convicted criminals there to be used during the gas attack. See he did not want to kill innocent people so this is what he did.
Reals1111 10 months ago
@Reals1111 You're joking right?
3baxcb 10 months ago
@3baxcb
That is no joke. Its the uncorrupted truth. The other versions are western propaganda
Reals1111 10 months ago
@Reals1111 not intended to be a factual statement.
arzgania 9 months ago
@Reals1111 he was a murderer no differant than hitler and stalon, a scumbag and nothing more
BarbarianBadAss 7 months ago
Comment removed
TormentedStatue 10 months ago
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn Yeah Obama was brought to power through the banks of England and is a nazi growing power. Tiberius is more like John F. Kennedy
TormentedStatue 10 months ago
Comment removed
BarbarianBadAss 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn not really because like tiberius obama's reform bills are similare and he is trying to help the american people unlike those teabaggers
BarbarianBadAss 7 months ago
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn you but the privately owned coffee shop will make better coffee
rank666 5 months ago
Rather, the Bobby Kennedy of Rome
Luxaquitaine 3 years ago
no!He was the Gracchus of Rome.Dont compare him to some shity american.
gun844 3 years ago
@Plotinus2112 not on your nelly
padookieking 1 year ago
@Plotinus2112 are you serious. Obama is an establishment politician in the truest sense. A blight on this great democracy
IruleOverProgressive 1 year ago
@Plotinus2112 Oh how wrong you turned out to be.
TheFaceofWisdom 6 months ago
@Plotinus2112 I look at people commenting on Plotinus, and feel nothing but pity; your comments all come 2 or 3 years after he made the remark, how easy it is to judge a man's comments 2, 5 10 years later. Why comment at all?
inkwaster 6 months ago
Tiberius Gracchus
hab123 4 years ago 3
jejeje!
75cawm2725 3 years ago
no bebebebe!
hab123 3 years ago