you know why rome fell is when emperors started to rule the roman empire when it was the republic it was basically long standing sure it didn't expand as it did but if it had stayed republic it would of lasted much longer then it did
@atnight87 what about all that american-stuff? Is everyone who doesn't agree with you american? Wow, some complexes didn't work out in the therapy, I guess :D
you SPEAK latin? Yeah, right. Like that other dude from Malaysia. xD you youtube-kids are funny as hell.
makes sense. I read an article a few weeks ago on the genetic diversity in Europe and it turns out that Southern Europeans have more diversity than Northern Europeans (due to early Scandinavians being primarily nomadic, and thus they mainly mated amongst themselves)
And you being an Italian should be happy about this, since the diversity in your DNA is a good thing; your offspring has a far better chance at being healthy
The Edict of Caracalla (officially the Constitutio Antoniniana) was an edict issued in 212, by the Roman Emperor Caracalla which law declared that all free men in the Roman Empire were to be given full Roman citizenship and all free women in Empire were given the same rights as Roman women were.
If Rome had survived, today we would be part of a unique nation with equal rights.
Rome reached this goal in 212, the european national states after the World War II...after 1735 years. Rome rules! \o
Roman citizenship was granted to many lands annexed by Rome. Northern Italy was apart of Gaul and when that was annexed the people their became citizens. By the time of Empire blonde haired Romans would have been common, especially in the north.
so many dumb fucking people make so many ignorant statements. why is their never any scenes or battles in the northern prvinces and alpine regions?50% of the alps are in italy.not france,germany.austria switserland.
Is everyone forgetting the ACTORS are ENGLISH which is why they are white, whereas ancient Romans were no doubt much more olive skinned and in summer probably quite bronze.
@Diocletian09 maybe they used english actors because they have so much roman blood because some (most of hadriens ligions never went back home to italy)england was named britania by the romans. do some research.
cool BBC video on the people behind the rise of ancient Rome..
To the young people you responded earlier, this video is full of British actors, as it was made in the UK, hence many of the actors appear more western european. Yes, the Romans had long roads and traveled to other parts of Europe, where the population were fairer in color and intermixing surely ensued. That's just natural.
@ClodiusP I think you're wrong. Before the Caesars, Rome was a Republic, therefore, no dictatorship. The Senate ruled and they were elected by the people (at least this was the official statement)
No I'm not wrong, the office of Dictator was a legal appointment generally used in times of emergencies. The US state of Cincinnati is named after the ex Dictator Cincinnatus, an early republic Dictator. Others include Q. Fabius Maximus, and L. Cornelius Sulla...Try google
@SuperArchitect101 You also forget another fact: The position of Dictator was an elected one. You could not become Dictator in Rome by seizing power. Not legally anyways. To become a legally appointed Dictator, you had to be elected, just like a consul, aedile, questor etc had to be elected.
dude, YT won't let me post the link but wikipedia the term "List of Roman dictators", then after you've perused the LONG list (of which Caesar was the last not the first) go to the bottom and read what a dictator actually was. Your problem is you're applying the modern connotation of dictator to the official roman titular office of Dictator. A Dictator was appointed to resolve a particular issue by the two consuls after consulting the Senate for a term of around 6 months.
Also, Caesar was a name that developed into a title. The Julio-Claudian emperors were either born, or adopted into the family and it was normal practice to take the family name. Nero was the last of the Julio-Claudians but because the name of Caesar was associated (particularly by the legions) with command, the subsequent emperors used it as a title to associate their authority with the authority of the Julio-Claudians.
@SuperArchitect101 Caesar was not a title. Caesar was a name until Augustus made it into a title by adopting his great-uncle, Julius Caesars name. So it was a title to all who followed Caesar but in Julius Caesar's case, it was only a name and it meant "a nice head of hair". Rome was still a republic under Caesar since the position of Dictator was one that existed in the republican system. At the time of Julius Caesars death, Rome was still a republic.
@Diocletian09 Well yeah, but that was under Augustus though. A couple of decades after the death of Caesar. So during the life of Caesar himself, Rome was very much a republic. Even when he seized power, he still did it within the rules of the republic, although some of those rules very SEVERELY bent. It wasn't until Augustus that the Empire was truly established.
@mjohanss1975 the definition of "caesar" isn't clearified. It sure as hell doesn't mean "a nice head of hair". Maybe it comes from one of his ancestors, it could be a lean-word from a different language, telling something about elephants, since these were the animals used on seals of his family.
@Kathrinoyo No, actually the definition of "Caesar" is well known, just like the definition of "Rufus" and others. "Caesar" means "a fine head of hair".
@Kathrinoyo Wikipedia? I have a university degree. University graduates have long since learned to use other sources than Wikipedia since sourcing Wiki isn't allowed at uni. I wouldn't even know what it says about Caesar on Wiki.
@mjohanss1975 There are many theories about where the name Caesar is derived from. Ancient sources like Sextus Festus favoured the "fine head of hair" theory. Colleen McCullough, who holds a degree in Roman history and knows enough about Rome to write a series of novels 6,000 pages long in total about Rome around the time of Caesar, agrees with him. Tell me, why should I take your word over theirs? What are your qualifications?
@mjohanss1975 first of all, you're talking to yourself. Just sayin'. Secondly, if you are really studying, you should that there are no ultimate truths in history. That's what I'm sayin': there is no absolute clue about Caesar's name. Plinius wrote it could derive from "caesus" für "cut off", others thought it could have a connection with the elephant in caesar's family seal. Sextus Festus was one guy of many and not the most reliable source, McCullough drew her knowledge from
@mjohanss1975 ancient sources and probably ended up with the version of truth, that mostly fit her attitude. The suffix "-ar" isn't even known in any other latin word (infinitivum), so it's more than appropriate to presume, that his name isn't even of latin origin. Get it now? If you really are studying, which I doubt personally, you passed some pretty damn important knowledge about scientifical research along the way. Good day.
@Kathrinoyo haha doubt all you want. My certificate is there in black and white, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly to what level I am educated. As for his name not being of Latin origin, Caesar himself would probably have agreed since the Julii was said to be descendants of Etruscan royalty.
@mjohanss1975 well your certificate is shiny and good-looking, but you obviously did miss something in your studies. Something about doing research right and interpreting historical sources reflectively.
And about caesar himself: he saw his ancestors in Aeneas and the trojan refugees. I would doubt his own words as much as I doubt yours. Good day ;)
@Kathrinoyo Well, whoever educated you certainly forgot to teach you something. Namely that being a smart-ass isn't the same as being smart. You wrote to me without having a particular point to make. All you wanted was some attention and the opportunity to express how clever you are for being sceptical of certain theories. Well, now you have. Mission acccomplished. Good bye.
@mjohanss1975 You don't get it :D you stated a doubtable fact and aren't able to confess, that it isn't a fact. I simply indicated it's dubiousness. We don't want people to go around and tell rubbish about the meaning of caesar's name, do we? ;) And you aren't able to receive criticism.
@Kathrinoyo haha wow...."little sissy"? Another brave internet warrior. I highly doubt you would have the nerve to call me that anywhere but on the internet hehe
@mjohanss1975 Is there a reason you only refer to that last part. Oh let me get it.. you don't have any argument left to prove me wrong, so you're just going over to that "I'm the toughest mofo around here, you wouldn't call me anything if you were right in front of me"-sissytalk? Laughable :D
@Kathrinoyo You know what's laughable? Somebody who calls somebody on the net something that they would not dare to say in real life. Did I make any references to you being a pussy? No I did not because that kind of name-calling is laughable on the net. It is also laughable to dig up a two month old comment on PAGE 5 just for the purpose of pointless trolling. Are you so eager for attention that you have to dig through old comments just to find one you can troll?
@mjohanss1975 No, I picked the comment because you stated a fact which wasn't one AND to get you all worked up. I worked and you obviously are a sissy, because you can't handle it :)
And I wouldn't hesitate to call you that AND punch you in the face, if we'd meet in real life. And I'm a woman ;D
@Kathrinoyo Hmm and out of all the things I said in that comment (took some digging for myself to find it so I can only imagine the effort you must have put into it. What kind of loser cares THAT much?) the bit about the hair is the only thing you latched on to? That wasn't even close to being the main point. You being the uneducated troll that you are, however, failed to grasp the main point and went after the one detail that is only theory in a post full of facts.
@Kathrinoyo But you know what? I have no time to waste on an insignicant unemployed troll (only the unemployed would waste time the way you do so I am making the assumption) and I have better things to do than feeding a troll. Since you're a woman, you need to reward my attention with pussy, otherwise why the hell would I pay you any mind? No point in replying. You are already blocked so I won't receive notification that you have responded. Like I said; I got better things to do even if you dont
@mjohanss1975 Lawl? Keep talking about wasting time and writing blocks and blocks about nothing but whining :D it took me nothing to "find" your post, because I stumbled upon it reading through the commentaries at my lunch-break, so that's for your theory xD
and that you insist on stating "facts" about anything related to history is the final prove that you don't no shit about anything you rambled here. Congrats, bro ;)
@TubeBillionaire Actually, Carthage was Rome's greatest archrival until 146 BC when Romans destroyed it, later on Parthians took the role, as a great eastern enemy.
I actually like the Roman Empire alot more than the Roman Republic. I don't really feel like giving the reasons. I just wanted to see what everyone's reactions would be. lol
If there is any black people watching these videos you need to wake up and realize these devils are the ancestors of our presidents wake the fuck up they are a different breed
I wonder why almost every Roman name ended "us"? Tiberius, Suetonius, Valerius, Vespasianus, Titus, Brutus, Julius, Antonious, Octavianus, the list goes on. Lol, could they not think up any more suffixes?
@HoundofOdin In Latin the grammar system is different from most modern languages. If there is an "us" as a suffix ( called a declension ) then the word or name is masculine. Feminine names usually end in a, since they use a different declension for nouns/names. For example, Octavia, Agrippa, Faustina, and Lucilla. However, it is impossible for a name to not have a declension.
I can't believe my eyes; A cinematic documentary about Tiberius Gracchus! - The prequel to "Julius Caesar" has been made, and I NEVER knew about it!? :D ....I watched the whole 8-part before this comment, and Hail the BBC! This isn't a documentary, it's a condensed Cinematic Epic!
Livy says the origin of Romans is the city of troy look at ancient portraits curly afros thin noses tan skin .modern Italians are a mix of meany races of slaves all original Romans were driven off the the land and moved to the provinces .
@Chansulus Care to prove that? The one who originated the myth of troy and the romans was Virgil, not Livy, and it was just a myth. Romans were of latin origin, therefore indo-europeans.
The etruscans did have, apparently, an anatolian origin, but they were the tyipical white mediterranean, as their frescoes indicate.
No prove whatsoever indicates roman population was displaced, and the impact of slavery in italy was proven to be minimal.
Rome also had a system of slavery where many different races were slaves from blacks to semite easterns, gypsies, and north/central europeans, so after more than a thousand years of that i would assume some of that is mixed in the present italian population.
@mrtundra45 I mean...if people ask this question in 2000 years...was Americans white/black/latinos? That would be a difficult one if they dont have sources and internet bla bla bla u know. And perhaps the future population of US would be more indian/mexican looking because of the mixing and emmigration from Latin America.
How come they say that romans was white and some of them had blonde hair? I know italians now a days got blonde hair and looks very mid/north european...
from what I understand, since the empire covered so much of Europe there was a lot of immigration throughout it as well as mating with the fairer Northern Europeans and Celts. So I'd imagine they had a very diverse mix of races and other ethnicity traits, likely more so than what's shown in films based on the times
And pretty much every army that conquered a land back in those days just took the most beautiful women home with them
Yes i agree about that, but that was much later in the history of Rome. I am thinking more about augustus and julius ceasar. Ceasar is described with light brown hair and light eyes...that makes no sense but well...u see blonde people even in mid east and africa so maybe it's not that weird after all.
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn Besides that I believe the ''Romans'' were a collection of Latin(in the south of Italy) and Celtic tribes(in the northern parts and Alps).. From what I understand the Celts were more northern European in appearance. That might explain blond Romans as well. Also ''race'' might not have been as much of an issue back then as much as is today and in recent history.
@evildeathmonkey1 From the Roman historian Suetonius, we know that virtaully the entire Roman aristocracy was blonde or red-haired. Remember that the Romans were an Indo-European people who themselves came down from the north. Only in the second and third centuries, when hundreds of thousands of Semitic slaves were imported into Rome, did their color start to darken- to the point it is today. So, the ancient Romans were NOT "Latins" as we think of them today.
@TomDavid88 The Roman Empire started in Italy which was inhabited by the ancient Etruscans, Greek colonist, Osco-Umbrians and these were not Indo-Europeans ( I suggest you catch up on the anthropological background of Italy)
@VINCI52 But the Roman Empire was FOUNDED not by these groups, but by the Romans, who were an Indo-European people. Oh- and the Greeks in the south were Indo-European as well, although you are probably correct in saying the Etruscans weren't, as they were most probably Semitic in origin. The Italians did not develope into a swarthy race until the importation of hundreds of thousands of Semtiic slaves in the second and third centuries.
@TomDavid88 Of course, yes, but these groups were also part of the creation of the Roman empire- they were assimilated at the beginning of the empire. The Roman empire by the time of Ceasar, had many ethnic groups as part of its population ( including its senators and legions) And by the way, Iranians and Hindus are also Indo-Europeans- they emigrated west to Europe via the north and filtered down south.
@TomDavid88 The Semitic theory about Etruscans is largerly discredited nowadays. Their language was most probably similar to other languages of the European Mediterranean (Tyrrhenian languages). As for the Indo-Europeans, it's not clear whether they were white and blondish at all. Actually, most of the Indo-European peoples with blonde hair and pale skin are probably mixed with indigenous Pre-Indo-Europeans. It's even probable the Indo-Europeans were just an ethnicity, with multiple features.
@Homoclassicus We know now from genetic studies that there were three major Semitic invasions into Europe in pre-historic times. The other non-Semitic peoples at the time had no where else developed the type and level of civilization that the Etruscans did, so I'm saying that they were PROBABLY Semitic. As to the Indo-Europeans, your comments are nothing more than Politically Correct propaganda. We have the most ancient source for describing them in the Vedas.
Despite its importance, the Vedas aren't a scientific book. Besides, I'm not saying the Indo-Europeans weren't white. However they didn't necessarily have the fairest pale skin and blonde hair. Genetic studies and linguistics demonstrate the Germanic peoples probably had much more influence from pre-Indo-Europeans. The R1a1 haplotype is intensely present in white, but not most fair-skinned peoples (e.g. Central Asia, Balkans), while it's much less comon in Germany and Scandinavia.
@Homoclassicus R1a1 is only ONE branch of the Indo-European blood line, that of the tribe of the Aryans, which is why it occurs frequently in both India and Eastern Europe. And no, genetic and linguistic studies only indicate that in places in the West, like Germany, that ALL the pre-Indo-Eurpean people were simply not completely destroyed. And the Vedas do not have to be "scientific" in the modern sense to give an accurate physical description of the Aryan peoples.
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn Oh and in later times(after Julius Caesar) There were a lot of Gaelic senators in Rome. They were there to ensure a powerbase for Caesar.
@Da40cal Romans were Caucasians, not exactly white since white is a term to describe the anglo saxon americans and those from the brittish isles ... basicly far west and north europeans.
Modern italians are also caucasians but with various backrounds some being more mediterranean and eastern, while others being more germanic and celtic... some are a mixture of the two as well as other various european ethnic groups like Slavic, as well as a tad of Semitic in some parts of italy
@Da40cal not exactly..... things change over 2000 yrs... but they did have similarities, and perhaps many looked identical to modern italians....like i said things change with time..and NO modern people look 100% totally identical to their ancient predecessors
@Da40cal Romans were like any other european group. Some had black hair, some brown hair, some blonde hair, and some red hair. Of course, as southern europeans, the darker tones were dominant, unlike the germanic tribes or the celts.
Roman surname Niger meant "black haired", Flavius meant "fair haired", and Rufus meant "red haired".
@Da40cal who is the they you refer to.last time i knew italy is part of european continent.the romans have blonds far earlier than the barbarien invasions .around 450 ad.julius caesar was blond and was caesar before Christ was born.what the fuck does blond hair have to do with your inquiry?
Rome was a democratic republic once, but then it changed to an empire with insane and mad totalitarian emperors. Why? You just know watching this'll be more exciting than whatever u have to do fer school :p ;)
The governmental system of the Republic was seriously flawed.
There were 10 tribunes, and if any 1 of them wanted to cause trouble, he could completely shut down the government (like Tiberius Gracchus) did.
There were 2 consuls and they held equal power. If they opposed each other politically then nothing would get done.
Government officials were allowed to do anything they wanted and commit any crime while they were in office. They could only be held responsible AFTER they left office.
You are wrong to label roman republic as a democracy. It was power evenly shared out only among the elites, but the rest had to fight their way through to get representation, and even then it was limited power! Rome never was a democracy! In some ways to tell you he truth the empire was better than republic. Slaves were treated better, military expansion stopped, and many of the emperors were competent rulers.
@TheAntoninusPius The government of the Roman Republic cannot be categorized. It had elements of Democracy (Assembies), Oligarchy (Senate), and Autocracy (Magistrates who could not be brought to trial while still in office).
No it wasn't. Only the highest social class could run for office and vote, which was less than 1% of Roman society. Also, the narrator repeatedly called it 'fair', which is amusing, considering the legality of slavery and rape.
@LightSpectra The common people elected representatives to the Assemblies, just like the US system. Also like the US, anyone can technically run for office, but candidates from the lower and middle class have little chance of being elected (NO chance of being elected to HIGH office).
@KayBeeEee1983 The Senate was the executive power, and senators were appointed from the comitia centuriata, which theoretically was democratic but was completely controlled by the aristocracy due to bribery and undemocratic mechanisms. There is nothing about the Roman Republic that was democratic, except the illusion of how it was supposed to be.
Consuls, Praetors, Censors, Quaestors, and Aediles were the executive power, and they were elected by the "comitia centuriata" (soldier assemblies). Senators were appointed, and could be dismissed, by the Censors. The executive magistrates were often Senators, but that doesn't mean the Senate was the executive power. US Presidents are often Congressmen, but Congress isn't the executive power.
@KayBeeEee1983 The senate was the ultimate political authority, though tribunes could veto certain proposals. Although the actual executives were the magistrates, their power was (until the very end of the republican era) underneath that of the senate's. Look at this graphical representation of their constitution: bit (dot) ly/iKMnvt
@LightSpectra "The senate was the ultimate political authority"
Yes because it dealt with foreign policy, the most important aspect of government during the Republican period. Besides, Censors determined the Senate, and the Comitia Centuriata determined the Censors.
Tribunes could veto ANY proposal.
"There is nothing about the Roman Republic that was democratic, except the illusion of how it was supposed to be."
Isn't "the illusion of how it was supposed to be", another way of saying "the law"?
@KayBeeEee1983 "Isn't 'the illusion of how it was supposed to be', another way of saying 'the law'?"
No, because the laws were intentionally curbed to favor aristocratic representation in the government. The illusion, however, was that the government was fundamentally based in popular sovereignty.
@LightSpectra The Comitia Centuriata was comprised of soldiers only. The Comitia Tributa was the assembly that represented the general population.
Since the Senate controlled foreign policy, it was the ultimate authority outside Rome, but the assemblies held domestic authority, and since the plebeian Tribunes could veto any proposal to the assemblies, the plebs held ultimate domestic authority.
"the laws were intentionally curbed to favor aristocratic representation in the government."
@KayBeeEee1983 Vote-buying, as well as the way electors were organized in the comitia centuriata (the centuries themselves were by how much land the soldiers in them possessed), meant that the magistrates (which were appointed by the comitia) were essentially chosen by the aristocracy rather than the people of Rome. The tribunes theoretically existed to counter-balance this complete lack of democracy, though in practice most of them used their position to take bribes from senators.
@LightSpectra Vote buying? Are you referring to the Patron/Client relationship?
Democracy just means rule by the people. It doesn't mean equality, necessarily. The Roman Republic wasn't purely democracy, certainly, as I said earlier: The government of the Roman Republic cannot be categorized. It had elements of Democracy (Assembies), Oligarchy (Senate), and Autocracy.
@KayBeeEee1983 The laws were originaly meant to protect the Patricians. The original assembly was infact the Comitia Curiata and that was the original patrician families. It was replaced by the Comitia Centuriata to put the power in the hands of the Army who's patrons and members were the elites. As the Republic grew older and these laws continued to favor the elite few while the population of the plebs grew...their power grew by sheer numbers and the intimidation.
@decidedvoter08 You left out the advent of the Plebeian Tribunes, less than 20 years after the foundation of the Republic, which were created to check the powers of the Patricians.
@rugbyking32 Rome and Italy existed before but "ancient" roman buildings have swastikas on them. all the libraries burned at the same time with original books but their "copies" survived. but still there're some ancient maps of 2-3 century & there's no RE on them, most of the Europe belonged to Tartary which fell only in 1775. Pompeii was buried not in 79 AD but in 1637, in19th century in its ruins under ashes were discovered a copy of drawing of Raphael(1483-1520). history is based on legends
@rugbyking32 i don't know about hadrian wall but coliseum was built in 18-19th century. it's a copy of the Istanbul coliseum which is the same in size. there're Papa's documents ordering to build it but it's called a reconstruction. analysis shows that in the beginning of the 18century there was nothing. brickwork is also "fresh". Papas were refugees from Constantinople(Istanbul) and wanted to reproduce their city. some coins and other stuff with coliseum on them are possibly refer to istanbul's
@kzjam If you don't know what hardian's wall is or can't spell colosseum correctly, you probably shouldn't be involved in any conversations about rome. Or anything.
@Nikanoru never heard of hadrians wall only know that chinese wall was built to protect Aryan's land from chinese after war with china 7519 years ago. my comment about Colosseum is just crappy translation of someones research into english. but the previous one saying that roman empire never existed and pompeii was buried in 1637 is complete truth.
@AllanGarcia88 yes, yes. I'm sure we're all very impressed by your ability to skirt an issue by copy/pasting things from wikipedia. Unfortunately, it doesn't really change the fact that the person I was replying to has absolutely no knowledge of the subject and should, at the very least, warn people that his inane posts have no basis in reality.
Or no, actually, at the very least, he should provide evidence for his claims and then present them in a more succinct way. Too picky?
@Nikanoru In fact I don't copy/pasted from wikipedia... I can speak Latin and I Spanish is my mother language, so it's obbius It's a natural word for my languague ¬¬
@kzjam Fomenko has the credibility of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist amongst actual scholars. Though that probably doesn't mean much, because if you believe outrageous trolls like Fomenko, you're probably also a fan of Loose Change as well.
@LightSpectra maybe i'm not a fanatic but i really believe that 9/11and other satanic things like haarp climate weapon, genetically modified food, drugs, murder of Jesus, all the wars, revolutions, religions, slavery and others are creations of the same group of people acting according to Torah currently residing in the US.
@kzjam What you believe is irrelevant unless it conforms to archaeological and historical evidence. Fomenko is a laughing stock for a reason: it's because he's an imbecile.
@kzjam So are you a Christian? Do you know anything about the religion? Do you realize that Jesus' death was a GOOD thing (according to Christianity)? Do you know that if Jesus hadn't died, you would be headed to the grave instead of having eternal life in the kingdom of heaven (according to Christianity)?
"all the wars, revolutions, religions, slavery and others are creations of the same group of people"
RELIGIONS?! How are Jews the cause of other religions? Are you insane?
@KayBeeEee1983 jews invaded egypt and some of them received it's knowledge and genetics evolving into higher cast & started teaching everyone else that the earth is flat and sky is a dome with little spots on it. they gave the world stupid religions and primitive science only to keep people as dumb slaves. at the same time they kept super-human abilities from egypt and keep on fooling us until today. not all jews are bad
@KKKSuperFan You've never heard of the Metu Neter, Afro-Asiatic languages, Sub-Saharan languages ect & more that ALL pre-date the 1700's by a longshot before??? YOUR A DUMBASS!
@KKKSuperFan Now u know that has to be one of the most asinine statements that I done heard this year thus far right? But I guess that I should expect something so retarded from someone called "KKKSuperFan" though huh? So where's your evidence for this nonsense son?
@KKKSuperFan Ancient Romans have their roots in Eastern Asia minor(Modern Day Turkey). They claimed this fact themselves in works like The Aeneid so chances are they probably were.Plus ever been to Rome in July?
rome was not a true republic. it was ruled by an oligarchy of estate owners and incredibly rich men while the people and slaves lived in poverty and near starvation. p.s italians and romans are not particuarly dark skinned and look like other western europeans. the extra's in this probably arent italian.
@SocialistJustice Well considering neither of us were alive back then we really dont know for sure now do we? Bear in mind the very fact that conquered territories outside of Europe yielded thousands of slaves which were taken to Rome to be sold at market. Over the 400 year period in which Rome existed what do you suppose happened to all of these people and their descendants?
The SECOND PUNIC WAR ended TIBERIUS GRACCHUS brought forward a bill to the senate for a creation of allotments mostly out of the area of public land which THE REPUBLIC had acquired. Those currently living on the land would be restricted to what had been the legal limit of ownership. Hostile feelings against GRACCHUS arose, when rich, influential men discovered that THE NEW LAW may deprive them of their land
Well I think some of this series was shot in Tunisia which could explain it, but in any case, Romans would have had quite tanned skin, being from Italy. More tanned than the main characters are, certainly.
the good ol' boys never liked change.
hollywoodwerewolf 1 day ago
lol at fail troll
conor845 1 day ago
you know why rome fell is when emperors started to rule the roman empire when it was the republic it was basically long standing sure it didn't expand as it did but if it had stayed republic it would of lasted much longer then it did
nyphix4321 3 days ago
Spanish, Portoguese and French do not come from Latin.
It's a common error.
They're a heavy mix of nordic language (French) and Greek\Arab (Spanish + Portoguese), with a little Latin influence.
Romanian is probably the only european language (except Italian of course, that comes directly from Latin) than can say it's derivated from Latin.
atnight87 4 days ago
@atnight87 nationalist rubbish.
Kathrinoyo 2 days ago
@Kathrinoyo nationalist rubbish?
Mine was a statement from someone that studied Latin and ancient Greek since high school, and still does at uni.
Also, from someone that speaks Italian, Latin and French, and knows well Rome's history, since I did many uni exams about it.
What about you?
Or are you just another ignorant yankee that lets its mouth speak without studying and thinking, copying from Wikipedia?
Want to bomb me cause I do not agree with you?
atnight87 2 days ago
@atnight87 what about all that american-stuff? Is everyone who doesn't agree with you american? Wow, some complexes didn't work out in the therapy, I guess :D
you SPEAK latin? Yeah, right. Like that other dude from Malaysia. xD you youtube-kids are funny as hell.
Kathrinoyo 2 days ago
dead guys head moves at 1:28...
kmack4427 1 week ago
Damn you Marcus Octavius!
bomdoboy 1 week ago
I'm italian and have red hairs by the way and a very, very white skin, if you really think that there are only olive skined people in italy...
MathildeXEma 2 weeks ago
@MathildeXEma
makes sense. I read an article a few weeks ago on the genetic diversity in Europe and it turns out that Southern Europeans have more diversity than Northern Europeans (due to early Scandinavians being primarily nomadic, and thus they mainly mated amongst themselves)
And you being an Italian should be happy about this, since the diversity in your DNA is a good thing; your offspring has a far better chance at being healthy
LadyAmaltheaUnicorn 2 weeks ago
The Edict of Caracalla (officially the Constitutio Antoniniana) was an edict issued in 212, by the Roman Emperor Caracalla which law declared that all free men in the Roman Empire were to be given full Roman citizenship and all free women in Empire were given the same rights as Roman women were.
If Rome had survived, today we would be part of a unique nation with equal rights.
Rome reached this goal in 212, the european national states after the World War II...after 1735 years. Rome rules! \o
belblus 2 weeks ago
@belblus fuck yeah!!!
AllanGarcia88 1 week ago
wow this is going to happen in the United States some day.
joedoet 3 weeks ago
Roman citizenship was granted to many lands annexed by Rome. Northern Italy was apart of Gaul and when that was annexed the people their became citizens. By the time of Empire blonde haired Romans would have been common, especially in the north.
Severinate 3 weeks ago
stops suddenly
supercoolmanikcool1 3 weeks ago
les russes sont etrusques
paienne14 1 month ago
so many dumb fucking people make so many ignorant statements. why is their never any scenes or battles in the northern prvinces and alpine regions?50% of the alps are in italy.not france,germany.austria switserland.
0311RFLMN 1 month ago
Is everyone forgetting the ACTORS are ENGLISH which is why they are white, whereas ancient Romans were no doubt much more olive skinned and in summer probably quite bronze.
Diocletian09 1 month ago
@Diocletian09 you are probably an italian wanna be.probably a middle east muslim . fuck you and your allah god of murder.
0311RFLMN 1 month ago
@0311RFLMN I'm Italo/Ukrainian fucktard. Talk about something you know.
Diocletian09 1 month ago
@Diocletian09 maybe they used english actors because they have so much roman blood because some (most of hadriens ligions never went back home to italy)england was named britania by the romans. do some research.
0311RFLMN 1 month ago
@0311RFLMN Yeah i said the ACTORS are ENGLISH, to clarify that the actors are not the actual people they are portraying - nor do they look like them.
Diocletian09 1 month ago
roman woman sucked the dick of many...they are ancient dick suckers...white woman are good at blow job
TheSpeckofdust 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSpeckofdust go back to your cave, troll hehe
mjohanss1975 2 months ago
God bless the brave and noble roman army may they R.I.P
EagleMarine2012 3 months ago
@EagleMarine2012 God?... You must say Iupiter Optimus Maximus... Roma Victrix!!
AllanGarcia88 1 week ago
cool BBC video on the people behind the rise of ancient Rome..
To the young people you responded earlier, this video is full of British actors, as it was made in the UK, hence many of the actors appear more western european. Yes, the Romans had long roads and traveled to other parts of Europe, where the population were fairer in color and intermixing surely ensued. That's just natural.
suzannedelahanty 3 months ago
fuckin youtube geneticists.....
lmao
mrtundra45 3 months ago
Comment removed
ClodiusP 3 months ago
"it is the story that begins with a small boy,long,long time ago"
shouldnt that small boy be Mr.Caesar?
ulongkoror 4 months ago
@ulongkoror caesar (wich was a title) was the first dictator. before him, rome was a republic
SuperArchitect101 4 months ago
@SuperArchitect101 Sulla
TheHaeresiarch 4 months ago
@TheHaeresiarch Please, do explain
SuperArchitect101 4 months ago
@SuperArchitect101
Caesar was not the first Dictator, there were many others prior to his office.
ClodiusP 3 months ago
@ClodiusP I think you're wrong. Before the Caesars, Rome was a Republic, therefore, no dictatorship. The Senate ruled and they were elected by the people (at least this was the official statement)
SuperArchitect101 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperArchitect101
No I'm not wrong, the office of Dictator was a legal appointment generally used in times of emergencies. The US state of Cincinnati is named after the ex Dictator Cincinnatus, an early republic Dictator. Others include Q. Fabius Maximus, and L. Cornelius Sulla...Try google
ClodiusP 3 months ago
@SuperArchitect101 You also forget another fact: The position of Dictator was an elected one. You could not become Dictator in Rome by seizing power. Not legally anyways. To become a legally appointed Dictator, you had to be elected, just like a consul, aedile, questor etc had to be elected.
mjohanss1975 2 months ago
@SuperArchitect101
dude, YT won't let me post the link but wikipedia the term "List of Roman dictators", then after you've perused the LONG list (of which Caesar was the last not the first) go to the bottom and read what a dictator actually was. Your problem is you're applying the modern connotation of dictator to the official roman titular office of Dictator. A Dictator was appointed to resolve a particular issue by the two consuls after consulting the Senate for a term of around 6 months.
ClodiusP 3 months ago
@SuperArchitect101
Also, Caesar was a name that developed into a title. The Julio-Claudian emperors were either born, or adopted into the family and it was normal practice to take the family name. Nero was the last of the Julio-Claudians but because the name of Caesar was associated (particularly by the legions) with command, the subsequent emperors used it as a title to associate their authority with the authority of the Julio-Claudians.
ClodiusP 3 months ago
@SuperArchitect101 Caesar was not a title. Caesar was a name until Augustus made it into a title by adopting his great-uncle, Julius Caesars name. So it was a title to all who followed Caesar but in Julius Caesar's case, it was only a name and it meant "a nice head of hair". Rome was still a republic under Caesar since the position of Dictator was one that existed in the republican system. At the time of Julius Caesars death, Rome was still a republic.
mjohanss1975 2 months ago
@mjohanss1975 Wasn't it just a republic for 'show'? with Augustus holding true power because of the loyalty of his troops?
Diocletian09 1 month ago
@Diocletian09 Well yeah, but that was under Augustus though. A couple of decades after the death of Caesar. So during the life of Caesar himself, Rome was very much a republic. Even when he seized power, he still did it within the rules of the republic, although some of those rules very SEVERELY bent. It wasn't until Augustus that the Empire was truly established.
mjohanss1975 1 month ago
@mjohanss1975 the definition of "caesar" isn't clearified. It sure as hell doesn't mean "a nice head of hair". Maybe it comes from one of his ancestors, it could be a lean-word from a different language, telling something about elephants, since these were the animals used on seals of his family.
Kathrinoyo 2 days ago
@Kathrinoyo No, actually the definition of "Caesar" is well known, just like the definition of "Rufus" and others. "Caesar" means "a fine head of hair".
mjohanss1975 2 days ago
@mjohanss1975 so, you are studying Wikipedia, I see.
Kathrinoyo 2 days ago
@Kathrinoyo Wikipedia? I have a university degree. University graduates have long since learned to use other sources than Wikipedia since sourcing Wiki isn't allowed at uni. I wouldn't even know what it says about Caesar on Wiki.
mjohanss1975 2 days ago
@mjohanss1975 There are many theories about where the name Caesar is derived from. Ancient sources like Sextus Festus favoured the "fine head of hair" theory. Colleen McCullough, who holds a degree in Roman history and knows enough about Rome to write a series of novels 6,000 pages long in total about Rome around the time of Caesar, agrees with him. Tell me, why should I take your word over theirs? What are your qualifications?
mjohanss1975 2 days ago
@mjohanss1975 first of all, you're talking to yourself. Just sayin'. Secondly, if you are really studying, you should that there are no ultimate truths in history. That's what I'm sayin': there is no absolute clue about Caesar's name. Plinius wrote it could derive from "caesus" für "cut off", others thought it could have a connection with the elephant in caesar's family seal. Sextus Festus was one guy of many and not the most reliable source, McCullough drew her knowledge from
Kathrinoyo 2 days ago
@mjohanss1975 ancient sources and probably ended up with the version of truth, that mostly fit her attitude. The suffix "-ar" isn't even known in any other latin word (infinitivum), so it's more than appropriate to presume, that his name isn't even of latin origin. Get it now? If you really are studying, which I doubt personally, you passed some pretty damn important knowledge about scientifical research along the way. Good day.
Kathrinoyo 2 days ago
@Kathrinoyo haha doubt all you want. My certificate is there in black and white, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly to what level I am educated. As for his name not being of Latin origin, Caesar himself would probably have agreed since the Julii was said to be descendants of Etruscan royalty.
mjohanss1975 2 days ago
@mjohanss1975 well your certificate is shiny and good-looking, but you obviously did miss something in your studies. Something about doing research right and interpreting historical sources reflectively.
And about caesar himself: he saw his ancestors in Aeneas and the trojan refugees. I would doubt his own words as much as I doubt yours. Good day ;)
Kathrinoyo 2 days ago
@Kathrinoyo Well, whoever educated you certainly forgot to teach you something. Namely that being a smart-ass isn't the same as being smart. You wrote to me without having a particular point to make. All you wanted was some attention and the opportunity to express how clever you are for being sceptical of certain theories. Well, now you have. Mission acccomplished. Good bye.
mjohanss1975 2 days ago
@mjohanss1975 You don't get it :D you stated a doubtable fact and aren't able to confess, that it isn't a fact. I simply indicated it's dubiousness. We don't want people to go around and tell rubbish about the meaning of caesar's name, do we? ;) And you aren't able to receive criticism.
Have fun, little sissy :)
Kathrinoyo 2 days ago
@Kathrinoyo haha wow...."little sissy"? Another brave internet warrior. I highly doubt you would have the nerve to call me that anywhere but on the internet hehe
mjohanss1975 2 days ago
@mjohanss1975 Is there a reason you only refer to that last part. Oh let me get it.. you don't have any argument left to prove me wrong, so you're just going over to that "I'm the toughest mofo around here, you wouldn't call me anything if you were right in front of me"-sissytalk? Laughable :D
Kathrinoyo 2 days ago
@Kathrinoyo You know what's laughable? Somebody who calls somebody on the net something that they would not dare to say in real life. Did I make any references to you being a pussy? No I did not because that kind of name-calling is laughable on the net. It is also laughable to dig up a two month old comment on PAGE 5 just for the purpose of pointless trolling. Are you so eager for attention that you have to dig through old comments just to find one you can troll?
mjohanss1975 1 day ago
@mjohanss1975 No, I picked the comment because you stated a fact which wasn't one AND to get you all worked up. I worked and you obviously are a sissy, because you can't handle it :)
And I wouldn't hesitate to call you that AND punch you in the face, if we'd meet in real life. And I'm a woman ;D
Kathrinoyo 1 day ago
@Kathrinoyo Hmm and out of all the things I said in that comment (took some digging for myself to find it so I can only imagine the effort you must have put into it. What kind of loser cares THAT much?) the bit about the hair is the only thing you latched on to? That wasn't even close to being the main point. You being the uneducated troll that you are, however, failed to grasp the main point and went after the one detail that is only theory in a post full of facts.
mjohanss1975 1 day ago
@Kathrinoyo But you know what? I have no time to waste on an insignicant unemployed troll (only the unemployed would waste time the way you do so I am making the assumption) and I have better things to do than feeding a troll. Since you're a woman, you need to reward my attention with pussy, otherwise why the hell would I pay you any mind? No point in replying. You are already blocked so I won't receive notification that you have responded. Like I said; I got better things to do even if you dont
mjohanss1975 1 day ago
@mjohanss1975 Lawl? Keep talking about wasting time and writing blocks and blocks about nothing but whining :D it took me nothing to "find" your post, because I stumbled upon it reading through the commentaries at my lunch-break, so that's for your theory xD
and that you insist on stating "facts" about anything related to history is the final prove that you don't no shit about anything you rambled here. Congrats, bro ;)
also: sexism, much? :D
Kathrinoyo 1 day ago
Much like the American Republic lasted 200 years lol
leegeorgeson 4 months ago
chinese empire is more better.
search:
The Tang Dynasty 618-907 AD Chinese History (English subtitle)
memoricrydo 5 months ago
@memoricrydo and the Qin and Han :) But still Rome is awesome :D
leegeorgeson 4 months ago
carthage was not Romes archrival as mentioned in the docu,
Parthia was.
TubeBillionaire 5 months ago
@TubeBillionaire Actually, Carthage was Rome's greatest archrival until 146 BC when Romans destroyed it, later on Parthians took the role, as a great eastern enemy.
alentabar 5 months ago
I actually like the Roman Empire alot more than the Roman Republic. I don't really feel like giving the reasons. I just wanted to see what everyone's reactions would be. lol
TheDavid2222 5 months ago
If there is any black people watching these videos you need to wake up and realize these devils are the ancestors of our presidents wake the fuck up they are a different breed
1234blazethahot44 5 months ago
@1234blazethahot44 Where do you get your information on THAT from? The Final Call? He, he, he!
Tom David
Minneapolis
TomDavid88 5 months ago
Did someone watch "Caligula" played by Malcolm McDowell?
Francesko263 6 months ago
LOVE this series, would've been cool if it had more episodes in it.
HistoryLover1550 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Roman history was judged by modern standards, we would swear that the ancient Romans spoke in English dialects, preferably RP ala Oxford!
ericvandenhaas 6 months ago
I wonder why almost every Roman name ended "us"? Tiberius, Suetonius, Valerius, Vespasianus, Titus, Brutus, Julius, Antonious, Octavianus, the list goes on. Lol, could they not think up any more suffixes?
HoundofOdin 6 months ago
@HoundofOdin In Latin the grammar system is different from most modern languages. If there is an "us" as a suffix ( called a declension ) then the word or name is masculine. Feminine names usually end in a, since they use a different declension for nouns/names. For example, Octavia, Agrippa, Faustina, and Lucilla. However, it is impossible for a name to not have a declension.
Dexz88 6 months ago
Wow. Thanks for clearing that up buddy.
HoundofOdin 6 months ago
I can't believe my eyes; A cinematic documentary about Tiberius Gracchus! - The prequel to "Julius Caesar" has been made, and I NEVER knew about it!? :D ....I watched the whole 8-part before this comment, and Hail the BBC! This isn't a documentary, it's a condensed Cinematic Epic!
bentonrp 6 months ago
Livy says the origin of Romans is the city of troy look at ancient portraits curly afros thin noses tan skin .modern Italians are a mix of meany races of slaves all original Romans were driven off the the land and moved to the provinces .
Chansulus 7 months ago
@Chansulus Care to prove that? The one who originated the myth of troy and the romans was Virgil, not Livy, and it was just a myth. Romans were of latin origin, therefore indo-europeans.
The etruscans did have, apparently, an anatolian origin, but they were the tyipical white mediterranean, as their frescoes indicate.
No prove whatsoever indicates roman population was displaced, and the impact of slavery in italy was proven to be minimal.
1999521 7 months ago
Rome also had a system of slavery where many different races were slaves from blacks to semite easterns, gypsies, and north/central europeans, so after more than a thousand years of that i would assume some of that is mixed in the present italian population.
mrtundra45 7 months ago
@mrtundra45 I mean...if people ask this question in 2000 years...was Americans white/black/latinos? That would be a difficult one if they dont have sources and internet bla bla bla u know. And perhaps the future population of US would be more indian/mexican looking because of the mixing and emmigration from Latin America.
Da40cal 7 months ago
How come they say that romans was white and some of them had blonde hair? I know italians now a days got blonde hair and looks very mid/north european...
Da40cal 7 months ago 4
@Da40cal
from what I understand, since the empire covered so much of Europe there was a lot of immigration throughout it as well as mating with the fairer Northern Europeans and Celts. So I'd imagine they had a very diverse mix of races and other ethnicity traits, likely more so than what's shown in films based on the times
And pretty much every army that conquered a land back in those days just took the most beautiful women home with them
LadyAmaltheaUnicorn 7 months ago 7
Yes i agree about that, but that was much later in the history of Rome. I am thinking more about augustus and julius ceasar. Ceasar is described with light brown hair and light eyes...that makes no sense but well...u see blonde people even in mid east and africa so maybe it's not that weird after all.
Da40cal 7 months ago
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn or they would just have their way with them and head home after the campain leaveing the men dead and the women preagnent.
firedathan 6 months ago 7
@firedathan
yep, that too
LadyAmaltheaUnicorn 6 months ago 5
@firedathan when a woman killed the baby from a roman she and the village were all eliminated hail the 13th .
Chansulus 6 months ago
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn Besides that I believe the ''Romans'' were a collection of Latin(in the south of Italy) and Celtic tribes(in the northern parts and Alps).. From what I understand the Celts were more northern European in appearance. That might explain blond Romans as well. Also ''race'' might not have been as much of an issue back then as much as is today and in recent history.
evildeathmonkey1 6 months ago
@evildeathmonkey1 From the Roman historian Suetonius, we know that virtaully the entire Roman aristocracy was blonde or red-haired. Remember that the Romans were an Indo-European people who themselves came down from the north. Only in the second and third centuries, when hundreds of thousands of Semitic slaves were imported into Rome, did their color start to darken- to the point it is today. So, the ancient Romans were NOT "Latins" as we think of them today.
Tom David
Minneapolis
TomDavid88 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheDavid2222 5 months ago
@TomDavid88 The Roman Empire started in Italy which was inhabited by the ancient Etruscans, Greek colonist, Osco-Umbrians and these were not Indo-Europeans ( I suggest you catch up on the anthropological background of Italy)
VINCI52 5 months ago
@VINCI52 But the Roman Empire was FOUNDED not by these groups, but by the Romans, who were an Indo-European people. Oh- and the Greeks in the south were Indo-European as well, although you are probably correct in saying the Etruscans weren't, as they were most probably Semitic in origin. The Italians did not develope into a swarthy race until the importation of hundreds of thousands of Semtiic slaves in the second and third centuries.
Tom David
Minneapolis
TomDavid88 5 months ago
@TomDavid88 Of course, yes, but these groups were also part of the creation of the Roman empire- they were assimilated at the beginning of the empire. The Roman empire by the time of Ceasar, had many ethnic groups as part of its population ( including its senators and legions) And by the way, Iranians and Hindus are also Indo-Europeans- they emigrated west to Europe via the north and filtered down south.
VINCI52 5 months ago
@TomDavid88 The Semitic theory about Etruscans is largerly discredited nowadays. Their language was most probably similar to other languages of the European Mediterranean (Tyrrhenian languages). As for the Indo-Europeans, it's not clear whether they were white and blondish at all. Actually, most of the Indo-European peoples with blonde hair and pale skin are probably mixed with indigenous Pre-Indo-Europeans. It's even probable the Indo-Europeans were just an ethnicity, with multiple features.
Homoclassicus 4 months ago
@Homoclassicus We know now from genetic studies that there were three major Semitic invasions into Europe in pre-historic times. The other non-Semitic peoples at the time had no where else developed the type and level of civilization that the Etruscans did, so I'm saying that they were PROBABLY Semitic. As to the Indo-Europeans, your comments are nothing more than Politically Correct propaganda. We have the most ancient source for describing them in the Vedas.
Tom David
Minneapolis
TomDavid88 4 months ago
Despite its importance, the Vedas aren't a scientific book. Besides, I'm not saying the Indo-Europeans weren't white. However they didn't necessarily have the fairest pale skin and blonde hair. Genetic studies and linguistics demonstrate the Germanic peoples probably had much more influence from pre-Indo-Europeans. The R1a1 haplotype is intensely present in white, but not most fair-skinned peoples (e.g. Central Asia, Balkans), while it's much less comon in Germany and Scandinavia.
Homoclassicus 4 months ago
@Homoclassicus R1a1 is only ONE branch of the Indo-European blood line, that of the tribe of the Aryans, which is why it occurs frequently in both India and Eastern Europe. And no, genetic and linguistic studies only indicate that in places in the West, like Germany, that ALL the pre-Indo-Eurpean people were simply not completely destroyed. And the Vedas do not have to be "scientific" in the modern sense to give an accurate physical description of the Aryan peoples.
Tom David
Minneapolis
TomDavid88 4 months ago
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn Oh and in later times(after Julius Caesar) There were a lot of Gaelic senators in Rome. They were there to ensure a powerbase for Caesar.
evildeathmonkey1 6 months ago
@Da40cal Romans were Caucasians, not exactly white since white is a term to describe the anglo saxon americans and those from the brittish isles ... basicly far west and north europeans.
Modern italians are also caucasians but with various backrounds some being more mediterranean and eastern, while others being more germanic and celtic... some are a mixture of the two as well as other various european ethnic groups like Slavic, as well as a tad of Semitic in some parts of italy
mrtundra45 7 months ago
@mrtundra45 So in the end, romans looked like most italians today?
Da40cal 7 months ago
@Da40cal not exactly..... things change over 2000 yrs... but they did have similarities, and perhaps many looked identical to modern italians....like i said things change with time..and NO modern people look 100% totally identical to their ancient predecessors
mrtundra45 7 months ago
@Da40cal Romans were like any other european group. Some had black hair, some brown hair, some blonde hair, and some red hair. Of course, as southern europeans, the darker tones were dominant, unlike the germanic tribes or the celts.
Roman surname Niger meant "black haired", Flavius meant "fair haired", and Rufus meant "red haired".
1999521 7 months ago
@Da40cal who is the they you refer to.last time i knew italy is part of european continent.the romans have blonds far earlier than the barbarien invasions .around 450 ad.julius caesar was blond and was caesar before Christ was born.what the fuck does blond hair have to do with your inquiry?
0311RFLMN 1 month ago
@0311RFLMN we don't know if Caesar was blond... but we know that Caesar was bald
XDDD
:truestory:
AllanGarcia88 1 week ago
Rome was a democratic republic once, but then it changed to an empire with insane and mad totalitarian emperors. Why? You just know watching this'll be more exciting than whatever u have to do fer school :p ;)
nephildevil 7 months ago
@nephildevil Because the Republic became very corrupted.... and Caesar became a symbol of hope for the plebs.
warmsteel 7 months ago
Do you think the modern States are more democratic than Roman Republic?
Miauriceful 7 months ago
The governmental system of the Republic was seriously flawed.
There were 10 tribunes, and if any 1 of them wanted to cause trouble, he could completely shut down the government (like Tiberius Gracchus) did.
There were 2 consuls and they held equal power. If they opposed each other politically then nothing would get done.
Government officials were allowed to do anything they wanted and commit any crime while they were in office. They could only be held responsible AFTER they left office.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago in playlist Ancient Rome
the brits love making roman films, it suits their egos while they remember their own empire days.
cuzcatlan36 8 months ago
US empire 100 years
Roman Empire 500 years
RobertsDigital 8 months ago
You are wrong to label roman republic as a democracy. It was power evenly shared out only among the elites, but the rest had to fight their way through to get representation, and even then it was limited power! Rome never was a democracy! In some ways to tell you he truth the empire was better than republic. Slaves were treated better, military expansion stopped, and many of the emperors were competent rulers.
TheAntoninusPius 8 months ago
@TheAntoninusPius The government of the Roman Republic cannot be categorized. It had elements of Democracy (Assembies), Oligarchy (Senate), and Autocracy (Magistrates who could not be brought to trial while still in office).
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago in playlist Ancient Rome
great doc
allenco65 8 months ago
"Rome was once a largely democratic society"
No it wasn't. Only the highest social class could run for office and vote, which was less than 1% of Roman society. Also, the narrator repeatedly called it 'fair', which is amusing, considering the legality of slavery and rape.
LightSpectra 8 months ago
@LightSpectra The common people elected representatives to the Assemblies, just like the US system. Also like the US, anyone can technically run for office, but candidates from the lower and middle class have little chance of being elected (NO chance of being elected to HIGH office).
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The Senate was the executive power, and senators were appointed from the comitia centuriata, which theoretically was democratic but was completely controlled by the aristocracy due to bribery and undemocratic mechanisms. There is nothing about the Roman Republic that was democratic, except the illusion of how it was supposed to be.
LightSpectra 7 months ago
@LightSpectra "The Senate was the executive power"
Consuls, Praetors, Censors, Quaestors, and Aediles were the executive power, and they were elected by the "comitia centuriata" (soldier assemblies). Senators were appointed, and could be dismissed, by the Censors. The executive magistrates were often Senators, but that doesn't mean the Senate was the executive power. US Presidents are often Congressmen, but Congress isn't the executive power.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The senate was the ultimate political authority, though tribunes could veto certain proposals. Although the actual executives were the magistrates, their power was (until the very end of the republican era) underneath that of the senate's. Look at this graphical representation of their constitution: bit (dot) ly/iKMnvt
LightSpectra 7 months ago
@LightSpectra "The senate was the ultimate political authority"
Yes because it dealt with foreign policy, the most important aspect of government during the Republican period. Besides, Censors determined the Senate, and the Comitia Centuriata determined the Censors.
Tribunes could veto ANY proposal.
"There is nothing about the Roman Republic that was democratic, except the illusion of how it was supposed to be."
Isn't "the illusion of how it was supposed to be", another way of saying "the law"?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "Isn't 'the illusion of how it was supposed to be', another way of saying 'the law'?"
No, because the laws were intentionally curbed to favor aristocratic representation in the government. The illusion, however, was that the government was fundamentally based in popular sovereignty.
LightSpectra 7 months ago
@LightSpectra The Comitia Centuriata was comprised of soldiers only. The Comitia Tributa was the assembly that represented the general population.
Since the Senate controlled foreign policy, it was the ultimate authority outside Rome, but the assemblies held domestic authority, and since the plebeian Tribunes could veto any proposal to the assemblies, the plebs held ultimate domestic authority.
"the laws were intentionally curbed to favor aristocratic representation in the government."
How so?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Vote-buying, as well as the way electors were organized in the comitia centuriata (the centuries themselves were by how much land the soldiers in them possessed), meant that the magistrates (which were appointed by the comitia) were essentially chosen by the aristocracy rather than the people of Rome. The tribunes theoretically existed to counter-balance this complete lack of democracy, though in practice most of them used their position to take bribes from senators.
LightSpectra 7 months ago
@LightSpectra Vote buying? Are you referring to the Patron/Client relationship?
Democracy just means rule by the people. It doesn't mean equality, necessarily. The Roman Republic wasn't purely democracy, certainly, as I said earlier: The government of the Roman Republic cannot be categorized. It had elements of Democracy (Assembies), Oligarchy (Senate), and Autocracy.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The laws were originaly meant to protect the Patricians. The original assembly was infact the Comitia Curiata and that was the original patrician families. It was replaced by the Comitia Centuriata to put the power in the hands of the Army who's patrons and members were the elites. As the Republic grew older and these laws continued to favor the elite few while the population of the plebs grew...their power grew by sheer numbers and the intimidation.
decidedvoter08 7 months ago
Comment removed
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@decidedvoter08 You left out the advent of the Plebeian Tribunes, less than 20 years after the foundation of the Republic, which were created to check the powers of the Patricians.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
How can the commentator say the Roman Republic was fair. It was good, but not fair.
CincinnatusSPQR 8 months ago
they teach us how to kill....
yhokz04 8 months ago
roman empire never existed. same as Jesus Christ wasn't born 2011 years ago, he lived in 11th century.
kzjam 9 months ago
@kzjam it never existed? are you mad
rugbyking32 8 months ago
@rugbyking32 Rome and Italy existed before but "ancient" roman buildings have swastikas on them. all the libraries burned at the same time with original books but their "copies" survived. but still there're some ancient maps of 2-3 century & there's no RE on them, most of the Europe belonged to Tartary which fell only in 1775. Pompeii was buried not in 79 AD but in 1637, in19th century in its ruins under ashes were discovered a copy of drawing of Raphael(1483-1520). history is based on legends
kzjam 8 months ago
@kzjam explain hadrians wall? explain the collasiam?
rugbyking32 8 months ago
@rugbyking32 i don't know about hadrian wall but coliseum was built in 18-19th century. it's a copy of the Istanbul coliseum which is the same in size. there're Papa's documents ordering to build it but it's called a reconstruction. analysis shows that in the beginning of the 18century there was nothing. brickwork is also "fresh". Papas were refugees from Constantinople(Istanbul) and wanted to reproduce their city. some coins and other stuff with coliseum on them are possibly refer to istanbul's
kzjam 8 months ago
@kzjam you are actually a retard
rugbyking32 8 months ago
@kzjam You're a Muslim, aren't you?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago in playlist Ancient Rome
@kzjam If you don't know what hardian's wall is or can't spell colosseum correctly, you probably shouldn't be involved in any conversations about rome. Or anything.
Nikanoru 3 months ago
@Nikanoru never heard of hadrians wall only know that chinese wall was built to protect Aryan's land from chinese after war with china 7519 years ago. my comment about Colosseum is just crappy translation of someones research into english. but the previous one saying that roman empire never existed and pompeii was buried in 1637 is complete truth.
kzjam 3 months ago
@Nikanoru may be you like... Murus dil Imperator Caesar Divi Traiani filius Traianus Hadrianus/Adrianus Augustus????
and colosseum as Coliseum or Amphitheatrum Flavium
¬¬
AllanGarcia88 1 week ago
@AllanGarcia88 yes, yes. I'm sure we're all very impressed by your ability to skirt an issue by copy/pasting things from wikipedia. Unfortunately, it doesn't really change the fact that the person I was replying to has absolutely no knowledge of the subject and should, at the very least, warn people that his inane posts have no basis in reality.
Or no, actually, at the very least, he should provide evidence for his claims and then present them in a more succinct way. Too picky?
Nikanoru 1 week ago
@Nikanoru In fact I don't copy/pasted from wikipedia... I can speak Latin and I Spanish is my mother language, so it's obbius It's a natural word for my languague ¬¬
AllanGarcia88 1 week ago
@AllanGarcia88 you obviously copied and pasted. These are just names and titles lol - what are you trying to say anyway?
Kathrinoyo 2 days ago
@kzjam
Can you cite a source for this? PS: the voices in your head don't count.
Rottenhaus 7 months ago
@Rottenhaus try to google for this: Fomenko's "New Chronology"
kzjam 7 months ago
@kzjam Fomenko has the credibility of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist amongst actual scholars. Though that probably doesn't mean much, because if you believe outrageous trolls like Fomenko, you're probably also a fan of Loose Change as well.
LightSpectra 7 months ago
@LightSpectra maybe i'm not a fanatic but i really believe that 9/11and other satanic things like haarp climate weapon, genetically modified food, drugs, murder of Jesus, all the wars, revolutions, religions, slavery and others are creations of the same group of people acting according to Torah currently residing in the US.
kzjam 7 months ago
@kzjam What you believe is irrelevant unless it conforms to archaeological and historical evidence. Fomenko is a laughing stock for a reason: it's because he's an imbecile.
LightSpectra 7 months ago
@kzjam So are you a Christian? Do you know anything about the religion? Do you realize that Jesus' death was a GOOD thing (according to Christianity)? Do you know that if Jesus hadn't died, you would be headed to the grave instead of having eternal life in the kingdom of heaven (according to Christianity)?
"all the wars, revolutions, religions, slavery and others are creations of the same group of people"
RELIGIONS?! How are Jews the cause of other religions? Are you insane?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 jews invaded egypt and some of them received it's knowledge and genetics evolving into higher cast & started teaching everyone else that the earth is flat and sky is a dome with little spots on it. they gave the world stupid religions and primitive science only to keep people as dumb slaves. at the same time they kept super-human abilities from egypt and keep on fooling us until today. not all jews are bad
kzjam 7 months ago
What's the title of this series, or movie?
Is it just called Rome?
MrBrent123t 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For anyone who wants to see personally the Ancient Rome....
Taxi Rome Airport - Civitavecchia port to center city and sightseeing to Rome/Italy up to 8 persons .
siteweb fratarcangelincc.it
contact name Fratarcangeli Paolo
pamegama1 9 months ago
would any1 recomend this series?
TheMonoman14 9 months ago
@KKKSuperFan Turkish tribes in the Mediterranean in the age of the Romans? LMAO
panarkas 10 months ago
eight people are Egyptians
HargunSV 10 months ago
@KKKSuperFan You've never heard of the Metu Neter, Afro-Asiatic languages, Sub-Saharan languages ect & more that ALL pre-date the 1700's by a longshot before??? YOUR A DUMBASS!
TheOriginator100 10 months ago
Republicans would call this guy a socialist and scream "redistribution of wealth"
Scipio2021 10 months ago
Ok where can you buy this series? Is it not available in the states? I don't see it on Amazon.
Scipio2021 10 months ago
@KKKSuperFan Now u know that has to be one of the most asinine statements that I done heard this year thus far right? But I guess that I should expect something so retarded from someone called "KKKSuperFan" though huh? So where's your evidence for this nonsense son?
TheOriginator100 10 months ago
@KKKSuperFan Ancient Romans have their roots in Eastern Asia minor(Modern Day Turkey). They claimed this fact themselves in works like The Aeneid so chances are they probably were.Plus ever been to Rome in July?
edthewise 10 months ago
@KKKSuperFan Kuklux klan member? What do you mean by dark? :)) (in anticipation of one the most stupid comments in the history of youtube).
alexanderwotl 10 months ago
@KKKSuperFan Obvious you don't know alot of about europeons past. Only what the kkk told you. U are not part of anything great.
Thutmosis7 10 months ago
@KKKSuperFan it had nothing to do with color you dumb fuk
seth61682 11 months ago
I would like to have lived back then, before the fall of the empire.
Finnstudios 11 months ago
Europe is not 100% white...
France is the portal to Europe for African people !!!
France, Portugal, UK same problem. (black ppl)
DONYBUENO 11 months ago
@DONYBUENO: Yes, but in those times, there were only white people in Europe
Splitbelgium 10 months ago
"Give them hell" is probably not a good line for the period.
beaubrent 11 months ago
@beaubrent Quite right! "Unleash hell!" is more appropriate!
ladybugsingstheblues 10 months ago
rome was not a true republic. it was ruled by an oligarchy of estate owners and incredibly rich men while the people and slaves lived in poverty and near starvation. p.s italians and romans are not particuarly dark skinned and look like other western europeans. the extra's in this probably arent italian.
SocialistJustice 11 months ago 2
@SocialistJustice Well considering neither of us were alive back then we really dont know for sure now do we? Bear in mind the very fact that conquered territories outside of Europe yielded thousands of slaves which were taken to Rome to be sold at market. Over the 400 year period in which Rome existed what do you suppose happened to all of these people and their descendants?
edthewise 10 months ago
A long time ago on a continent far far away
ANTIQUE WARS
EPISODE I REBELLION
The SECOND PUNIC WAR ended TIBERIUS GRACCHUS brought forward a bill to the senate for a creation of allotments mostly out of the area of public land which THE REPUBLIC had acquired. Those currently living on the land would be restricted to what had been the legal limit of ownership. Hostile feelings against GRACCHUS arose, when rich, influential men discovered that THE NEW LAW may deprive them of their land
CrazyKraut20 11 months ago 2
alllllaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! 0:11
breerex123 1 year ago
Why when you pause at 1:19 the entire crowd is Arab...and not Roman? Is this supposed to be Syria?
teamxxxsleep 1 year ago
@teamxxxsleep
Well I think some of this series was shot in Tunisia which could explain it, but in any case, Romans would have had quite tanned skin, being from Italy. More tanned than the main characters are, certainly.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist Tanned skin? Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "tanned"...
unapologeticmind 1 year ago