first of all i;'m not sure what point you are trying to make about caracalla or why you are arguing with me then end up agreeing. you are totally wrong about that, that's the modernist interpretation of republican rome 1st of all: they never abolished the sacred function of the king after the roman kingdom, they merely created new sacerdotal offices to patrician pontiffs to carry out his function 2nd modern american senate is nothing like roman senate, which did nothinig without sacred divination (christians saying divination is bad), and had hereditary senators (means old man) that held office until death in many cases. julius caesar didn't emerge out of nowhere. he could only arise in a sacred republic. it was not a secular republic. he was pontifex maximus, and he restored the dignity of the sacred office, which augustus completed.  you have a materialist, modernist understanding. autocracy is a kike word to denigrate kings and aristocratic rulers. christianity divorced royal and pontifical powers, and early church fathers such as cyril of alexandria said that only christ denotes royal seats, anticipating the papal edict of gregory vii francis yockey said cicero and seneca were culture-retarding weaklings, because he understood the sacral realm that was happening, which christianity forbade us from perceiving. 20 years of academic papers about rome suffer from what is called "christianisation", painting the roman sacred rites as merely performative, not real. but they were a highly pious people, performing rites up to 30 times to get them right. this is remarked upon in 2 posts i made in this thread:     calling caesar bad is simply  a pro tip: the roman emperors were trying to revitalise the alexander cult, which was also popular in rome, and was extinguished by christians (as stated by cyril of alexandria). these people believed in the sacred. modern democratic views reinterpret their period, academia is poisoned
United Kingdom