Julius Caesar: The Making of a Dictator

The quality and accuracy of events and timelines are good. I really liked the power org chart and the show is terrific at explaining the manoeuvres of power.

I learned a lot I didn't know about Cato. The writing is good and the pacing well done. But the show is an oh so not subtle dig at Trump and it's tiresome.

There is absolutely no credit given to Caesar for his remarkable achievements. (Again like Trump) None. For example;

Caesar led a series of military campaigns that resulted in the annexation of Gaul, encompassing present-day France, Belgium, and parts of Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands. Why is this bad? Why show a woman and baby running in a forest?

Dictatorship and Centralization of Power: As dictator, Caesar implemented reforms to centralize authority, reduce corruption, and address economic issues.

Julian Calendar Reform: Caesar introduced the Julian calendar, a solar-based system that replaced the previous lunar calendar. This reform established a more accurate method of timekeeping, with a 365-day year and a leap year every four years, forming the basis of the modern calendar.

Social and Economic Reforms: He enacted policies to alleviate debt, redistribute land to the poor and veterans, and restructured the tax system. These measures aimed to address economic disparities and reduce social unrest within Rome.

Expansion of Citizenship: Caesar extended Roman citizenship to individuals in distant regions of the Republic, fostering loyalty and integrating diverse populations into Roman society.

Public Works and Infrastructure: He initiated extensive construction projects, including the Forum of Caesar and the rebuilding of Carthage and Corinth. These endeavors improved urban infrastructure and provided employment opportunities.

Literary Contributions: Caesar authored works such as "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" (Commentaries on the Gallic War), offering detailed accounts of his military campaigns and providing valuable learning and insight.

If you are going to have a load of actors whose words we never hear, an obvious question is: do we need them at all? Actually, it works really well. The casting is excellent, with distinctive individuals characterising each of the protagonists.

The mix of expertise, combining classical scholars with experienced political commentators, is really effective. We end up with two things: a vivid and memorable depiction of the political struggles of Caesar's time, and a timely warning against the dangers of populism in our own day. That trick of advancing one's own faction and personal interests by pretending to be on the side of the masses has come back to bite us just as Cato and Cicero feared.

Most of us are familiar with Caesar's achievements and demise. At school, I was seriously turned off by Shakespeare. The melodrama and archaic English did nothing for me. I hated Latin and dropped it as soon as I could. But Caesar's life and death are fascinating.

This documentary style series fleshes out what really went on as Caesar emerges as the most successful Roman ever. He puts himself on a pedestal (tyrant/dictator) and undermines the 500 years of Roman democracy. Ultimately the only way the senate could cope was to murder him in full view of all the senior Romans. Lots of lessons for modern democracy!

This is a program that attempts to apply modern values to ancient history in an effort to paint Gaius Julius Caesar as a tyrant and demagogue, ultimately making the show feel like a thinly veiled propaganda rather than a history lesson. Caesar was beloved by the Roman population and his desire for dictatorial power was driven by the need to integrate a rapidly growing empire into one cohesive unit without getting hung up in the politics of a bloated and increasingly corrupt Senate. Given the growth, stability and peace Rome saw during Augustus' reign following Caesar's death, it's hard to argue otherwise. He was a visionary, not a villain.

'Julius Caesar: The Making of a Dictator' presents us with (dialogue-free) dramatic reconstructions of the great Roman's life, accompanied by modern experts telling us what they deduce he was really thinking and feeling. It's the same approach recently used in 'The Rise of the Nazis'. That series was marred by its need to tell us at every instant that the Nazis were bad; this one is similarly didactic, and its message is that Caesar overthrew Roman democracy. But the Roman republic was never democratic, and had endured not because it was a platonic ideal of government, but rather that the political system existed as part of a set of broader societal norms that aligned its leaders and the people. Moreover, by the time of Caesar's ascent, it had been in a state of near-continuous crisis for almost a century, as the patricians of the senate enriched themselves and no longer respected limits to their power. The story of Caesar's rise and fall is a good one, but Caesar was a symptom of the republic's demise, rather than it's cause. When eventually Octavian became the first Roman emperor, he spoke of having restored the Roman "res publica", which was one part cheap rhetoric but one part true. You don't have to admire Caesar to realise the republic was rotten (which was why his death did not lead to its recovery, but rather to its final fall). But this series gives us none of this complexity. It's a wasted opportunity to shed some real light on history.