Added: 1 year ago
From: SPARTANsenator7
Views: 16,188
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (50)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I think the only reason Caesar's death is a tragedy is that it didn't occur sooner.

  • @evolooshion

    I disagree, assasinating Caesar was againt Rome's interests!

  • @SPARTANsenator7 I agree with you there, but I have...less than favorable things to say about Rome. Perhaps I'm odd in that sense

  • @evolooshion

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion buddy :) In a way i agree with you too!

  • I just dont see Caesar as a brutal slaughter.. .when hes on my pizza box 's 

  • @crocgator44

    provided that the salad is not tainted :)

  • The Gallic Wars proved that not only does caesar destryo armies but the will to continue also

  • caesar had compbat expierience in spain where he trained his favorit 10th legion.

  • I like how they insist on showing the generals fighting furiously along with the rest of their armies, total hogwash, but entertaining...

  • @QRF11B "As a soldier Hannibal was superior to Caesar....however, as a soldier....Caesar has no equal in antiquity." Contradict yourself much? I'm pretty sure Caesar has MANY, MANY equals in antiquity. You simply need to read history instead of writing a brown-nose comment.

  • @votumseparatum1

    Caesar was indeed great but not as great as Alexander the Great, even Caesar knew that!

  • @SPARTANsenator7 yes Alexander The Great Was a far more superior and intelligent conquerer and king than caesar he did it all in 33 Years!

  • @AstiArts

    true!

  • Ruthless, cunning and highly intelligent.

  • CAESAR WAS SCARED OF TALOFA " THE BIG "...KING OF THE SAMOANS......

    CAESAR USED NINJAS AND SHOLIN MONKS WHO TRAINED IN ARGENTINA TO HELP DEFEND ROME....

    IT WORKED UNTIL THE JEDI'S REBELED.........

  • HE ALSO KEPT THE TRAINS RUNNING ON TIME

  • Well more precisely a proconsul was in Caesar's time a governor of a province, who was only allowed to perform military actions in case of enemy attack. Caesar's provinces were adjacent to Gaul and he was in need of military glory. His work De Bello Gallico is in fact his depiction and most of all his justification of the events and his actions to the Roman senate, in which he described his war as more of an preemptive strike, because otherwise he wouldn't have had the authority to execute it...

  • In Caesar's time a proconsul was a governor of provinces and he wasn't sent to conquer Gaul, he was entrusted with three provinces adjacent to it, but decided nonetheless to seize it, to gain military glory, which he needed for his political career. In fact De Bello Gallico, the book he wrote about the war, is his depiction and most of all his justification of the events and his actions to the senate of Rome, because he was not given the authority to start this campaign...

  • No matter what are you thinking about the behaviour of Caesar with his enemies. What makes to Caesar someone trully remarkable is the astounding use of available troops, the creation of brilliant battlefield strategies and the political instinct to see when to hit, how to hit and where to hit.

  • @dvashnik

    Too bad he failed to see the treason within Brutus! Caesar did not deserve that kind of death!

  • @SPARTANsenator7 well, he kind of did deserve it. The reason that he was killed was because he was acting as the emperor in what was for a long time an advanced republic. Caesar's actions are very similar to those that Napoleon would take in dealing with the Directory and Consulate governments. They killed him because he was trying to , and accomplished in, turning the Roman Republic into, essentially, a dictatorship.

  • @downedcoyote1

    No matter what, he was a great general who saved Rome more than once while some others stood idle shaking every time there was a real threat so he did not deserve this kind of assasination, especially when his assasins were lazy rich people. And look what happened after him, there was no more republic, those who killed him with the pretect of saving the republic sparked the flame for an emepror to appear!

  • @downedcoyote1 Based on the history of the Rome it appears that Rome was much more successful as an empire rather than a republic. So IMHO Caesar was unjustly murdered

  • I just don't see Caesar as a brutal slaughterng butcher. He was a general of HIS TIME....not of OUR TIME. Any other military leader of the time would have done the same thing. We should not apply our moral standards on historical figurres. I'm not supporting the old Roman empire. Just saying Caesar was a man of his time...not ours. They had different moral standards back then.

  • @LaserBeam002

    correct!

  • @LaserBeam002 However, the Romans WERE more brutal than most other civilisations even back then. Historical research has shown that they routinely treated their enemies in ways that even the rest of the ancient world were horrified by.

    But it worked...

  • @LaserBeam002 That being said even the Romans had lower moral satandards than most other peoples in ancient Europe in my opinion

  • thx for uploading my tv is broke lol thx

  • @DJsharp707

    my pleasure :)

  • I <3 History Channel.

  • Their description of the prelude to the siege of Alesia seems way off to me. They make no mention of the battle of Gergovia, a major confrontation and not just a guerilla style skirmish. And Caesar retreating back to Rome? Nonsense! During the entire war in Gaul Caesar never once went back to Rome. He sometimes spent the winter in the milder climate on the other side of the Alps in Cisalpine Gaul but that's all.

  • I actually watched the one on Alexander the Great before this one... Alexander was definitely cunning but I think Ceaser would have stopped him in his tracks and annhilated him.. Ceaser did, however, learn from Alexander and I believe that Ceaser was much more cunning that Alexander especially since he had Marc Antony by his side. As vulgar and brash as Antony was, he was very, VERY manipulative and naturally intimidating, and he had no thirst for power. This = good wingman

  • @danimal24585

    On the other hand i think that Alexander would easily prevail, especially if u think that Alexander had much less army at his disposal, the fact that he did that at a much younger age, that also makes him more efficient. It was Caesar himself that looked up to Alexander and when he was almost 30 found himself less than Alexander.

  • @SPARTANsenator7 Indeed, Caesar did look up to Alexander as well as felt bad about how little he had accomplished at 30. On the other hand, Alexander had the best opportunities to get involved in elite military operations from the age of 16 because of his father but Caesar had to make his own place in the world and so he wasn't able to solely concentrate on military matters until much later in life-but they both had many similarities like amazing engineering feats & use of artillery in the field

  • @legioXequestriis

    As a Greek i love Alexander but Caesar is also one of my favourite commanders!

  • @danimal24585 I definitely am tempted to agree with you. I've always thought that Caesar was the better than Hannibal, as a strategic-tactical mind and definitely as a battlefield leader, and that Caesar was the only person who could approach Alexander and in many ways they were quite similar-both were bold, extremely fast, had a core group of veterans, a favored elite unit (Alexander's Hypaspists/Companion Cavalry & Caesar's Tenth Legion/Extraordinarii Cavalry) & both pioneered field artillery.

  • Ceaser apparently cried when he turned 32 cause he hadn't accomplished as much as Alexander the Great, and Alexander died at 32.....obviously..

  • @danimal24585

    I have heard that about Caesar! Watch also the video about Alexander!

  • I only want Ciran Hinds, or whatever the guys name is that play Ceaser in ROME on HBO to portray Ceaser.... He was badass and a memorable portrayal

  • I love doing homework with this in the background..

    

  • @JFCPantheras The battles being displayed by the actors were not regular features of battle in any time during the Gaullic campaign or other wars. Frequently the battles were decided by one army out marching the other. Most of the time the other army would break and run and be attacked while running. Hand to hand combat was so rare as to be a notable event. This portrayal is for all purposes non-academic. Prof. James Bowden-Southern Institute for Antiquities.

  • @mysttracker The Gauls....in most part of Gaul, didn't beat their own soldiers to death for cowardice or attempting to escape. The Romans, on the other hand, would be shit on, pissed on, and beat to death for cowardice, fleeing, and being insubordinate. I have simply heard this, so if I am wrong correct me. But I do know the ultimate insult for a Roman, Pleb or Patrician, was to be called a coward. I know the soldiers despised cowardice, and Ceaser could rally troops like nobody else EVER

  • The Gallic Wars and De Bello Gallico... some brutal and bloody military campaigns against gallic tribes and a book that was a masterwork of political propaganda. They paved the way for Iulius Caesar to become the ruler of the Roman Republic.

  • If there is a malfunction with the comment box, and you want to comment press "show all comments" and when the box appears write your comment!

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more