Head to squarespace.com/maiorianus to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using the code "maiorianus". And of course as always: Thanks a lot for watching and for your continued support :) I really appreciate it a lot, dear friends of Roman history.

@Hello-ig1px

Жыл бұрын

There is no such thing as an eastern Roman Empire. How can you the call the Byzantine empire the “eastern Roman Empire” when the vast vast super vast majority of its population were ethnic Greeks? How can you call the Byzantine empire the “eastern Roman Empire” when almost all of their emperors were ethnic Greeks or ethnic Armenians? How can you call the Byzantine empire the “eastern Roman Empire” when they almost never spoke Latin and the vast majority of its population couldn’t speak Latin at all? The real Roman’s never really settled or colonized the Thracian province or the Macedonian province. These guys were Greek, not Latin

I recall in a history class we read a series of letters written in the late 5th or early 6th century between two Roman aristocrats in Gaul. This was after the “Fall of Rome.” From their perspective things were very ordinary. They didn’t think anything was seriously amiss, certainly not that something has fallen and they were living in the aftermath of some spectacular event.

@damionkeeling3103

Жыл бұрын

Boiling frog example. The decline was generational so the loss of services and reduced quality of life went largely unnoticed. There was population decline, cities became smaller and buildings less well constructed. About the only thing that didn't decline was farming.

@Basil-HD

Жыл бұрын

@@damionkeeling3103 looks like today crisis...

@Joanna-il2ur

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like the nine books of letters of Sidonius Apollinaris, son of the praetorian prefect of Gaul and former Urban Prefect of Rome, who became Bishop of Clermont in the 470s AD.

@annaclarafenyo8185

Жыл бұрын

@@damionkeeling3103 There was increased quality of life for most people, the 'reduced quality of life' only means slaves didn't wait on aristocrats hand and foot, the aristocrats were the ones attacked and reduced in power, and this loss isn't a loss at all.

@annaclarafenyo8185

Жыл бұрын

@@AlbertBasedman Without slaves, aristocrats become medieval nobility. It's the difference between the Antebellum south in the US and the segregated 1920s. It's a gradual process, so likely no one individual was hurt, and some of the old aristocrats, like Constantine, were profoundly unsettled by the abuse of slaves by nobility, and willingly Christianized, so they were 'class traitors' to put it in modern terms. Constantine moved the capital away from Rome because he thought Rome was tainted by the atrocities of the past while Constantinople would not be.

If I asked an immortal person who lived through the entire Roman Empire their opinion on the different rulers it had, I'm pretty sure their answer would be: "There comes a point where they all look basically the same to you..."

@laughsatchungus1461

Жыл бұрын

I love this.

@commentfreely5443

Жыл бұрын

the was a sibyl who lived 700 years. martial Stories recounted in Ovid's Metamorphoses. Although she was a mortal, the Sibyl lived about a thousand years. She attained this longevity when Apollo offered ...

@alexmag342

Жыл бұрын

Not really

@annaclarafenyo8185

Жыл бұрын

No. The pre-Christian emperors are all terrible, crucifying people and allowing them to be fed to lions in arenas. The post-Christian emperors are much less powerful and are forced to put an end to the atrocities one by one, by the Church. The big difference is Christianization.

@niksatt4843

Жыл бұрын

That's valid

Roman Empire: Falls Average Roman citizen: I missed the part where that’s my problem

@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046

Жыл бұрын

Western* Roman Empire

Perhaps Rome didn't entirely fall even in 554, considering that the last meeting minutes of the Senate date from 603. It may have even continued to meet after that, but if so we don't have any record of it.

Odoacer: "Now that the Western Empire is no more, my new kingdom will prosper both from me and from my successors..." Me: "History will remember your reign as Kingdom of Odoacer..." Odoacer: "Verdammt!"

@juliusnepos6013

Жыл бұрын

Should have not trusted him

@saikrishnak8631

Жыл бұрын

2 seconds later... gets sliced by theodoric..

@Joanna-il2ur

Жыл бұрын

Odoacer probably didn’t speak German in any form. His brother had a Roman name and his aunt was the eastern empress, wife of Basiliscus, who was emperor in the east when Odoacer overthrew Romulus and sent him the imperial regalia. Unfortunately, while those were at sea, he was overthrown and replaced by Zeno, who he (Basiliscus) had overthrown. I think the idea was that Uncle Basiliscus was supposed to return the regalia and make Ocoacer junior emperor, but it all fell apart.

I came to my own conclusion some years ago after some research. The Gothic war destroyed Italy and it took centuries to repair. You could make the argument that under the early Ostrogothic kings that even Hispania could be considered to be ruled in the Emperor's name. I won't go and say that Justinian ironically destroyed the Roman empire, I am not that much of a contrarian, but he did take late classical Rome and hastened it's decline.

@georgevieira6686

6 ай бұрын

I believe the actions of Justinian show that Romans knew the concept of the Goths as subjects of the Roman Empire was convenient in theory, but false in practice. In the immediate aftermath of the Western Empire's "fall", it was wise for the new Germanic rulers to maintain a semblance of the order that had existed under the Romans, which even meant maintaining Roman bureaucracy when appropriate. The goal of the Germanic rulers was to lord over prosperous, civilized territories, and so keeping the Roman machine humming was of value. But at the end of the day, the Germanic rulers were going to bow to no one and were not going to discard too much of their culture and traditions for the Roman way, and they were not going to hand over any serious decision-making to a Roman that viewed themselves as a superior. Roman influence was to be used strategically and phased out whenever feasible. The long-term prospects for Roman interests under Germanic rule were poor. This is why Justinian invaded. Justinian's invasions made paying even nominal respect to Roman governmental authority an obvious no-go for the Germanic peoples. For a brief time, Romans were a serious threat again in the West. Then, from this moment, we quickly proceed to the Romans fading to irrelevancy in the West in the wake of the Islamic invasions in the East. At that point, for Westerners, there was no use in paying any serious respect to the Romans. The Romans were very weak, at least in terms of mounting offensive campaigns in the West. The popes too would see the writing on the wall and gradually distance themselves from Constantinople, culminating in the crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. The biggest negative effect of Justininan's invasion, I think, was how greatly it damaged the economy of the West. The Germanic rulers had been trying their best to keep the Roman economy that had existed before them running, with some success, as we see in Rome under Theodoric. The Germanic people, however, were ill-equipped at the time to rebuild a destroyed economy in a manner that could rival what Romans had been capable of .

Also, "the fall" could happen at different times in different provinces.

@Basil-HD

Жыл бұрын

Italy though is the best candidate for the fall due to historical legacy

@accountreality1988

Жыл бұрын

Britannia has a clear fall into a dark age.

@jeanssold2131

Жыл бұрын

@account reality probably the only one to actually experience the dark ages as most people understand them

This reconsideration of Rome's course, and the parallel Byzantine millennium, is so valuable. I am blown away by the detailed critique of standard teaching, which I swallowed, of course, and which must change to be historically objective!

I think a lot of the way we see the Roman Empire comes from English historians, especially Gibbons' _The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire_. I see much similarity between how he viewed the events of 476 and 1066 (in England). Due to the brutality of William's conquest, it truly was as stark a contrast as day and night - the old Anglo-Saxon nobility was wiped out and replaced by a Norman one. Even the peasants were affected by this and realized there was a real sea change. This has since been emblazoned on the Emglish psyche. It's easy to see how Gibbons would equate 476 with 1066 and imagine the change was as dramatic. It would be unimaginable to think otherwise. It's always easiest to lump things into convenient time periods. Granted, the English weren't the sole arbiters of Roman history. However, they had a profound influence on It's telling; look no further than the name "Byzantine Empire," a name the Eastern Romans never called themselves. Though they spoke Greek, they always called themselves Romans, for example.

@patrickohooliganpl

Жыл бұрын

Not all of the old Saxon nobility was wiped out from England, for example that notorious Hood named Robin of Locksley ( ͡º ͜ʖ͡º)

It was interesting to learn where the 476AD date came from and the purpose behind it. How curious that that date has remained ever since!

I wonder how the history would have looked if Odoacer or Theodoric had tried to reclaim more of the former lands of the Western Empire... like going to war with the Vandal Kingdom in Africa...

@alexzero3736

Жыл бұрын

They could not do it alone, only Eastern Empire had adequate fleet to invade Tunis. So it could failed, like Majorian failed, but if it's succeed... That could change history, Empire wold be more rich and it could kept Italy.

@connect2437

Жыл бұрын

I’m wondering what could have been done after Belasarius reconquered North Africa. That grain supply would be critical to re-establishing an imperial west. Could a deal have been made to put an heir under the gothic kings in exchange for a steady grain supply/military aide in reclaiming Gaul/Hispania?

@Epicrandomness1111

Жыл бұрын

@@connect2437 the video doesn't push this hard enough but the reclaiming narrative is nonsensical. The 3 major kingdoms of the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths & the Franks, each essentially ruling a greater province of the Roman Empire, were conceived of as being inside the imperial structure. They all minted coins with the Byzantine emperor's face and name, they had provincial divisions continuing from the Roman administration, their armies were the continuations of western legions. Justinian's wars of 'reconquest' in Italia and Hispania, were each justified officially within the legal framework of the kingdoms being within the Roman Empire. Both involved intervention in a local civil war, against a previously acknowledged subordinate.

@jonathanwebster7091

Жыл бұрын

Odoacer and Theodoric actually did: Odoacer reclaimed parts of Pannonia (lost to the Rugii); and Theodoric reconquered modern day Provence; lost to the Visigoths in 477, in 510, and even re-established the Praetorian Prefecture of Gaul at the same time.

@jonathanwebster7091

Жыл бұрын

@@Epicrandomness1111 thats true for the Visigoths, as they had initially been Roman foederati, but they ceased that pretence in 475, under King Euric. The Franks were never Roman foederati at any point (as far as I'm aware). All three continued to mind coinage in the Emperor's name though; and there's evidence of Consular dating being used in southern Gaul as late as the 700 (which by then had become synonymous with the Emperor, until its final abolition under Leo VI).

A question that I think is specifically relevant to a broader world is at what moment you could argue that the Roman influence and example to the (western) European world ended. When would let's say someone in nowadays France (that had been under Roman rule for centuries) say the Roman Empire (as a reliable state and defender of the law) ceased to exert its power and influence to their region? And was this a once happening event, or had this feeling been around multiple times, after which Roman rule had re-emerged? (perhaps you Maiorianus have already covered this topic, otherwise you could perhaps do so in the future?)

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

Жыл бұрын

Hello Niels, that is a very nice question and would certainly make for a good topic. I have noted it down and will discuss it at some point in a future video :)

@themetroidprime

Жыл бұрын

You'd get two answers: it ended with the fall of Rome/when the locals started being ruled by a germanic king (Frank, Suevi, Goth, etc) *or* they'll say it never ended as every former province would keep reclaiming the roman legacy. Those who didn't got whiped out (Vandals). Constantinople would never cease to be the beacon of civlization in all of Europe until its fall, and by that time, the West would habe started its Rennaissance and would take over the roman legacy for its own. Roman law is still very much a thing, Latin is dead but its natural evolution have never been more spoken around the globe. Half of the words of the world's lingua franca (english) are from latin, and Roman symbols, history and mythology are still at the very core of Western civilization. I mean, the symbol of the French Republic is a fasces. The US seal is an eagle. There are fasces in the halls of Congress. Not even having to bring up Russia as "third Rome". Rome never died, we still live in its shadow, now more than ever, even.

@ricardoroldan3777

Жыл бұрын

For me in the third century crisis the western half of Rome was mortally wounded

@commentfreely5443

Жыл бұрын

so rome fell when it was invaded by the eastern roman empire.

@DISTurbedwaffle918

Жыл бұрын

Since France considers itself a third Rome, a proud Frenchman would likely say that Roman rule is still the status quo.

People often forget that it was the Lombard invasions that severed the majority of Italy from de jure part of the Empire. And even then, the Duchy of Rome and the Pentapolis continued to be a part of the Empire until the 700s, and the very south of Italy continued to be a part of the Empire until the 1000s.

Very hard to argue that the Empire was reunited after 476 AD in anything but in name. The emperor in the East had no control on what was happening in the West, nor any tax revenue or military assistance. Later when the Ostrogoths came and Theoderic Rex was in charge, they might have accommodated some of the existing old Roman state and social structures, but themselves were living not under the Roman law but under the jurisdiction of a different Germanic law. As for the Roman Senate, it is really a sad joke that they were back in power. After all, it was the Roman senatorial class that have been constantly opposing for 200 years and eventually undermining the power of the Roman army in the West and that of the Emperor. They were responsible for the string of weak emperors in the West and the betrayal of those that didn't want play along with them. Since the reforms of Diocletian, the Empire was no longer centred around Rome, it was centred around the Emperor and his court which was wherever he was fighting near the northern frontiers. Finally, after 476 AD, the shortsighted Senate won and got back their Rome, but their Rome was no longer an empire. Their Rome however didn't last for very long - the irony of history is that when the Empire and the Army got back in the mid 6th century, most of the senators were killed or scattered and then the Roman Senate was never again to be heard about after 600 AD.

@gs7828

Жыл бұрын

Theodoric precisely kept Roman law in place, as the Lombards largely did too. The Lombards also were a small caste, distant from the locals.

I understood it was Gibbon who adopted it because he could say the Roman Empire started with Romulus and ended with Romulus.

@andrelegeant88

Жыл бұрын

Gibbon is both impressive and yet a wealth of misinformation and absurd conjecture. His take on late antiquity is also not very good because he was quite anti-Christian.

@WagesOfDestruction

Жыл бұрын

@andrelegeant694 great book, though. still remember parts of it after 40 years

@KevinJohnson-cv2no

Жыл бұрын

The Roman Empire ended on 330 A.D. upon Constantine's proclamation of a "New Rome" on the soil of Byzantium; christening the birth of The Byzantine Empire. He would later make Jesus the patron saint of the army, and pass the Edict of Nicaea legalizing Christian worship; further cementing the Byzantine state. Anything else is largely LARP (IE. HRE & WRE both "calling themselves Romans" as if that means anything) & historical revisionism on part of christ-adjacent viewpoints.

@KevinJohnson-cv2no

Жыл бұрын

@@andrelegeant88 List, objectively, the reasons which render Gibbons assertions wrong. Objectively debunk them.

If you took an American from 1915 to the modern US they’d think the country had fallen. We can’t see it because it happened slowly over the course of our lifetimes.

Great job, man! Your channel is much informative, and your explanation is very much clear and didatic. Thank you and keep up the good work!

I've loved Roman history since I was a teenager, and I really appreciate the perspectives you give in your videos. This video in particular was very informative about what Justinian did to the West.

You renewed my entire perspective on the topic, congrats

I got two little bronzes from one of those lots of European uncleaned coins that were cheap some years ago. Both are commemoratives, one is ROMA and the other CONSTANTINOPOLI. I think they were issued at the same time.

@morte3498

Жыл бұрын

I didn't know that and it's from an italian , I need to learn more about this then

If it wasn't built in a day it makes sense it wouldn't fall in a day

I think you need to dig into Odoacer just laying lip service to the eastern emperor. He minted coins with the emperor’s face and said he was loyal and ruling for him but in reality he was independent. That’s why the goths were sent by the eastern Roman’s to better administer Italy for the empire . This blew up in the emperor’s face and the goths just then did the same thing and were far more powerful than Odoacer. So yeah to the common person they didn’t see the culture change and not enough time passed but the government wasn’t really Roman anymore

@failtolawl

Жыл бұрын

Yea, it seems to be like it may have been the same perspective as the Hans under Manchu control, or most Indians under British rule.

@gs7828

Жыл бұрын

The military caste was not Roman-Italic, but the administration was. Even under the Lombards it was like this.

and this video was one of the best i have listened to in this channel, congrats dawg

One day in the distant future Historians could say the same about the exact date of the fall of the British Empire. You can make an argument that it fell in 1947 with the Independence of India and Pakistan but those living in the British isles moved on as if nothing happened. They were just happy to come out of WW2 as the victors not caring at all when their empire fell all around them.

@precariousworlds3029

Жыл бұрын

British Empire is a bit different. I'd say it went into decline in the 1920s, full on "Fall" in the 1950s, and ended in 1997.

@legiran9564

Жыл бұрын

@@precariousworlds3029 That's what you know. My point is how the historians of 1000 to 2000 years in the future would rationalize the date of the fall of the British empire. Would they for example pinpoint it in 1947. Just how silly this is how the fall of the Western Roman Empire was pinpointed in 476 AD by mainstream historians.

@failtolawl

Жыл бұрын

@@legiran9564 To be fair, there was no major regime change, no sacking, no conquest. It was just a decolonialization. It's so well documented at that.

@legiran9564

Жыл бұрын

@@failtolawl How are you so confident that said documentation can survive after 2,000 years?

@user-it2kq4ty9q

Жыл бұрын

@@legiran9564 we have documentation from 2000 years ago

This is an awesome video with lots of great examples!

I once heard a comment from someone with a similar perspective and understanding as Maiorianus. He said, the Roman empire ( in the 5th century CE), didnt so much as "fall", but just slowly faded away. Or a very similar sentiment. We like to assign hard and fast dates, to when particular political arrangements, ie, empire in this case, come to an end. Even when realities on the ground may be more nuanced than, "Well that's it everybody, our empire has collapsed, its official."

@wbertie2604

Жыл бұрын

Yes, this is what I've also read. That 476 marked the end of a truly independent Rome, and the coopting of the organs of state by an external power, but that those organs of state gradually withered away, for example Roman law continuing, but as a parallel code to more Germanic (in a broad sense) traditions of law.

I really liked your video, Im currently trying to make my own history channel. With your video I would recommend looking at the various breakaway empires of Rome, and see if there were cultural, linguistic differences between them and the empire itself, etc.. difference between gallic empire vs. roman empire

I admire the way you weave your sponsor's ads into your presentation. Very clever and the not the least bit off-putting.

Maiorianus: AS ALWAYS - VERY INFORMATIVE & INTERESTING video!

Terrific video!

that promo was very, very slick mate!

I think it took about 100 or 150 years for the people of the Roman Empire to accept and finally believe it fell when it finally fell so it took a few Generations

@TEverettReynolds

Жыл бұрын

I agree 100%. For example, the Baths of Diocletian, built around 300 AD, were the largest, and the last of the great bath buildings built. The baths were open until 537 AD, when the Ostrogoths cut off aqueducts to the city of Rome. During those 237 years, they would have been used and repaired as needed. But even before that point in 537 AD, someone would have looked around and realized that *Rome was no longer willing or able to build such magnificent structures anymore, and had not for a while now.* It would have been a slow slide into oblivion. By the time the Ostrogoths came in, no one was even around anymore (not even a grandfather) who could say they helped build them.

@rajasekharathuluru6561

Жыл бұрын

They actually started feeling suspicious about that from 476 because imperial regalia was sent to Constantinople by odoacer but as senate was still functioning they thought it didn’t fell. Ostrogothic conquest changed much in Rome. They finally knew it when eastern Roman troops took the city.

I think the saddest thing was before Justinians conquest A frank born in Gaul or a Roman in Ostrogoth Italy would all see themselves as roman But sudden invasions of belisarius really destroyed the cultural perspective of how l other "Romans" began to question the existence of Rome and the identity of who exactly could be considered as in fact Roman.

Really convincing analysis!

I still maintain the Western state truly fell when Justinian tried to conquer Italia with the Gothic Wars. The statement 'They made a desert and called it peace' is very accurate imo

@DISTurbedwaffle918

Жыл бұрын

I believe that the Plague of Justinian did more than the actual wars. The way I see it, Italy would have recovered if it had just been "reclaimed" by Justinian, but the Plague would have ravaged Italy just the same even if the wars didn't happen at all.

That is the best transition to an ad I've seen in a long time. :)

I guess this Ordarcaer had to play nice nice by not making any major changes such disbanding the Senate and other Roman institutions by feeling the might by the Eastern Roman army retaking Italy. Love all your KZread videos

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

Жыл бұрын

Very well said :) Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it :)

@hank964

Жыл бұрын

@@Maiorianus_Sebastian you’re very welcome

You should do a video on the life of Galla Placidia. Her life was a game of thrones-esq tragedy and story of herionism.

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

Жыл бұрын

Hello ! Don't worry, she is definitely on the "future video list". Unfortunately, that list has 300 entries currently, lol, and every single topic is so fascinating. But she will have her turn, don't worry. The women who ruled the Empire shall not go unnoticed.

@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl

Жыл бұрын

You do realize that it's game of thrones that is like her life right?. I am so tired of people claiming real life is like game of thrones. Game of thrones has that imprission because it takes its events from real history

@laughsatchungus1461

Жыл бұрын

@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl ok

@laughsatchungus1461

Жыл бұрын

@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl i never watched that show anyhow so idc

great content!

I love the videos and all the content. Did you ever do a video on the title "The last Roman?" I would mention: Stilichio, Aetius, Justinian, Belisar, Majorian, Valentinian I., Julius Nepos

Thanks For This Magnific Vídeo.

Great video. Please give us a video about Syagrius.

Great video

Do you plan on talking about malaria in Rome and the common misconception that it caused the decline of the Empire?

Top Notch work as always. 🧐

Thank you for the video, it is a very interesting time period. I think that what you are describing is the "death throws" of a very long lived culture. Maybe one bad analogy is a camp fire. The flame goes out be the coals are still there. And every now and then a small flame will pop up but then quickly dies out. Finally after some time even the coals die.

Great video :) good thema

There was no fall but rather a partition between Theodosius the Great's sons. After this emperor, there are just successor Roman states, the Eastern Roman empire being one until it became completely hellenized.

Excellent

Good video bro

Interesting perspective, a bit of creative interpretations and speculations required for these arguments but it is interesting to think

@Kuhmuhnistische_Partei

Жыл бұрын

It's actually a very common perspective among historians these days. Basically all historians and archaeologists I know who aren't total idiots kinda subscribe to this version.

What the "fall" really meant was the fall of the large state (in the west) and a transition to city states which lasted until the modern era. Also, of course if someone were able to ask a person living at some point in time during this transition about a "fall" they wouldn't have answered with some positive assertion since these changes were happening over time, some over a long period of time, some less, and because people living back then lived much more in the moment since they lived their life with much less perspective of time and space that modern people take for granted. Reality was much more localized for most both physically and temporally. *Note, this transition to city state really started after the time the presenter is speaking about (caught this at the end of the video which mentioned Byzantine's sacking of Rome (Gothic War.) So this is really a side note of what followed rather than a reflection on anything that was presented. Reading the comments though I get the distinct impression some missed the part of what was being presented as being a specific period that pretty much ended with the Gothic War. Things did decline after this and what rose up was the City State model (along with some occupations, etc.. along the way.)

History always looks different when looking at it from the future. We are all experiencing history all the time, we just dont realise it. I mean I didn't realise I was experiencing the 1970's as a child and I can assure that people now have a very different view of it to what I did then.

Good video. If the barbarians were so integrated and caring then during belisarius first invasion of Italy you wouldnt have had so many romans go turncloack and switch sides

@ADINSANE

Жыл бұрын

As for the correspondence and the pleadings, its highly likely such was done under duress. As for the senate retaining more power, such was needed in order to control the local populations and were gradually pushed back in terms of effectiveness and power / control. The barbarian power structure was very vertically oriented whereas most of the roman power structures were horizontal with the exception of the emperor

@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl

Жыл бұрын

@@ADINSANE the roman empire was far more autocratic than barbarians ever were

Maiorianus not being sponsored by SPQR Shop? Impossible!

I could see Justinian standing under a gigantic "Mission Accomplished" banner.

In my opinion, the day that Rome actually, truly fell was the day when Caesar had crossed the Rubikon

@Kuhmuhnistische_Partei

Жыл бұрын

Well, yeah, kinda. Rome really wasn't that much of a capital city for the Roman Empire. The actual high period of Rome as a capital for the Romans was before that.

@martinbruhn5274

Жыл бұрын

@@Kuhmuhnistische_Partei I mean, by abandoning its republican origins, Caesar laid the foundations for the later periods of "strong men" fighting it out in civil wars, over who gets to take control of the empire. In a republican system, such struggles for power are limited to the political stage, which guaranteed internal stability for Rome, until the beginning of the crisis of the Republic. But instead of reforming the Republic, Caesar destroyed it. Autocracies have this inherent element of instability and even during the era, when the Republic came into a crisis, the crisis wasn't caused by people who were working in accordance with the rules of that Republic with the intention of maintaining that Republican system, but by people who wanted to make themselves dictators of Rome. Beginning with Sulla.

@matthiuskoenig3378

Жыл бұрын

I think you are incredbaky biased if you think republics are more stable than autoctacies. Yes the empire had civil wars but its no different to the Republic. Your attempt to defend the republic's civil wars is especially telling. Guess what the imperial civil wars were also going against the Contemporary legal codes. You can't defend the republic's polticla instability and corruption by saying it was going against the system, when the same is said of the empire's. The fact of the matter is the 1st 2 centuries of the roman empire were the most prosperious and stable the roman state ever was, we can see this by the relative lack of internal political violence, the massive amounts of trade, the massive amounts of meat eating, etc. It puts the Republic to shame. The crisis of the 3rd century ad was no worse than the crisis of the 1st BC, but actualy has factors beyond the Roland's political control to blame, such as a climate crisis.

@martinbruhn5274

Жыл бұрын

@@matthiuskoenig3378 The Republic only started t have civil wars, when Sulla became the first roman politician who tried to topple the republican system and make himself emperor for life. In autocracies you have stability tied to a specific person. But every time there is a change in ruler, there is inherent stability. In a Republic, stability is tied to the political system. Which means, as long as that system is thriving, there is stability, regardless of how many changes in power there are. But in an autocracy, every change in power inherently bears the threat of political collapse and even civil war.

@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046

Жыл бұрын

@@martinbruhn5274 if anything, it was caesar's assasination that ended the Roman republic

The rulers all mostly resemble each other. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Even back in school in 70’s had teachers thought this was a goofy idea for Rome’s fall.

Good video keep op the good work😂❤

Plurimas gratias tibi ago, Maioriano!

Actually there was an Emperor in the West between 423-425. Named Johannes, a Senior Civil Servant. Yes he was a Usurper but he controlled the West (somewhat) & it (in the words of historians) took a long & hard fought campaign along with some treachery that Johannes was defeated

It's a shame what the West went through with tribes while the East just bribed the tribes into attacking her sibling. The East had sealed her fate by doing this when in 1204, the grandchildren of western Romans and Franks (Europeans) came and sacked our Constantinople. 😭 Then the Turks came and all was done to New Rome too 😭 Now we can only hope to study more on Roman heritage, learn to grow and preserve what has been left. That is what we can do the most.🙏🏻 Thank you for the beautiful video.

@FranzBiscuit

Жыл бұрын

The best way to preserve and recognize Roman culture is to understand the ways and customs of the Italic tribes, the so-called "Latin people" who had migrated from Anatolia around the time of the "Bronze Age Collapse" (roughly 3500 years ago). Their empire was conquered around 500 BC by a Greco-Roman admixture, but the influence of the Latins over daily life remained. Interestingly enough, the ruins of the ancient Göbekli Tepe, dating back a whopping 10,000 years ago, appears to have been built by the ancestors of the Latins! (As revealed by DNA studies.)

@daphnesapci

Жыл бұрын

@@FranzBiscuit that's sounds more like geography-based neo-fascist propaganda but ok...

@FranzBiscuit

Жыл бұрын

@@daphnesapci I base that on quite a bit of research. Perhaps you can explain to me why you think my assessment is flawed? I welcome any criticism whatsoever and open-minded to hear different perspectives on the matter. Constantinople was part of the Eastern (orthodox) Roman Empire. Is that correct? It would be very interesting to know how your ancestors might have viewed the overall situation.

Justinian created a desert and called it peace.

I’m not sure how much documentation there is on this, but how much influence did the Roman emperors/government actually have over the Germanic rulers of Italy? Did they operate more like a province with hereditary rulers, or was it more of a tributary/lip service sorta thing?

@Basil-HD

Жыл бұрын

Pretty much no authority I would say

@AlexiosTheSixth

Жыл бұрын

Lip service I think

@Phantom-xp2co

Жыл бұрын

Germanic rulers were de facto autonomous

Rome converted to Christain and into the Roman Catholic Church. That city space still is the most powerful government entity within the map of the Roman Empire. The employees of the Vatican mostly live in Italy. Nothing has changed.

Odoacer's Kingdom of Italy was Roman in a similar sense to Herod's Kingdom of Judea being Roman 500 years earlier.

@kingjoe3rd

Жыл бұрын

That is not really as good of an analogy as you probably think it is.

@andrelegeant88

Жыл бұрын

That isn't really true at all. By the late 5th century, most Germanic peoples were Romanized. While they had customary laws among themselves, many did not even speak a Germanic language anymore. Their biggest difference from the Romans was their adherence to Arian Christianity, not their Germanness.

@flaviusjconstantius

Жыл бұрын

@@andrelegeant88 facts. Not to mention pretty much all the Roman institutions survived. The senate, urban prefects, consuls, even the praetorian prefecture of Italy. To say it’s akin to herods Judea shows a complete lack of historical knowledge.

@Innomenatus

Жыл бұрын

@Flavius Julius Constantius Hence it is Justinian, by rejecting the vassalage of the Roman Kings as Barbarians did the Roman Empire fall.

@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl

Жыл бұрын

@@andrelegeant88 they spoke Germanic languages among themselves. Even their Arian church liturgical language was German

It's like asking "when did the British empire fell?" It's clearly not there anymore but not much has changed for the British.

@ANGLO-GERMAN96

Жыл бұрын

Pretty much.

@Kalahridudex

Жыл бұрын

Indian independence maybe?

@jpaulc441

Жыл бұрын

@@Kalahridudex Many people consider 1997 to be the final end of the Empire, when Hong Kong was returned to China. Yes there are still small British overseas territories like Gibraltar or Bermuda but they all have tiny populations. Hong Kong had a population of millions.

@Kalahridudex

Жыл бұрын

@JPaulC An empire is a "political unit" made up of several territories and peoples, "usually created by conquest, and divided between a dominant center and subordinate peripheries".[1] The UK is still an empire by that definition.

@fischX

Жыл бұрын

@@Kalahridudex bye the "we have an empire at home" definition it is. But by this definition the Roman empire has fallen much later.

Pleasant surprise that the sun came up the day after.

The Fall can be defined as the end of the centralized government and military occupation of Western Europe by Dynastic Roman rulers and their political and economical infrastructure And that decline, as the result of various factors, happened quite fast in the late 5th century, with armies retreating ad taxes and tributes no longer collected from Brittannia, Gaul, Germania, and the Balkans, and local warlords being installed as independent kings with no servitude or loyalty to Rome or Constantinopel, other than through the Christian hierarchy.

If you asked them about Roman history, the average Byzantine citizen probably only knew of the Christian martyrs made by the emperors, the Crucifiction and the conquests of Caesar. Roman identity was so powerful that its citizens prefered to be assimilated by barbarians. The only reason the Eastern Roman Empire was called Roman at all was because Hellene was used by Christian authors as a byword for pagan. The Romans failed to assimilate the Albanians, Greeks, Berbers, Basques, Armenians, Hebrews, Assyrians, Egyptians, Samaritans, Britons.

Do more videos about Dacia Traiana🙏

DO A VIDEO ON THE SUEVIC KINGDOM!

I agree! For example: Nobody say's, that the roman reign endet with Trajan, because he was from Spain. Nothing endet 476 a.D. except 476. 😁

The conditions after the fall of Rome is a matter of notable academic controversy. Peter Brown was and is very much of the school of transformation while scholars like Peter Heather suggest the archaeological and written record very much suggest a fall (tiles, quality pottery, nails and hinges largely vanishing outside of elite sites), that is, the post Roman world was much poorer, albeit with the collapse of the Roman way of life delays in the Roman East for a good deal longer. Yet there were differences. Roman buildings were repaired as noted in the video, cities of Visigothic Spain show material decline (yet St Isodore of Seville had access to a fairly sizeable Roman library) but continued vibrancy, while in post Roman Britain, most cities ceased any meaningful urban life even before, or a little after, Roman withdrawal (likely 410 but some limited and renewed Roman presence could potentially be allowed for a some time after). For example the Romano-British commander and commoner Constantine III was imperial colleague with Honorius until 411 and perhaps took some limited measures. Thanks again Maiorianus.

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

Жыл бұрын

Hi Isaac, well said. I would also add Bryan Ward-Perkins to the list of notable authors who suggest it was a quite drastic fall in many places, but as you said, this "Fall" varied quite considerably in intensity and scope from region to region. In Britain indeed archeological evidence suggests a very sharp drop in living standards and technology after ca AD 450, whereas in Italy, that drop was more delayed and more benign. That video is specifically for the years AD 476 - 536 of the kingdoms of Odocaer and Theoderich, and not meant as a general video for all regions of western Europe. In Italy, there was remarkable contuinity in those decades, but we shall analyze the other places of Europe also in great detail, as they were quite different from Italy in how severe the "Fall" was felt by the people.

Actually there was a gothic empire with a strong Visigothic and Ostrogothic alliance along with the client state of the Vandals. Italy was not part of the empire but rather an autonomous state.

If the Senate was in control...then the Roman Empire was over though. If we are picking nits. With no emperor, there is no empire.

Gibt es ein Kanal, wo du deutsch sprichst?

awesome ... justinian the destroyer sounds really nice by the way

Peasant before: Calor Peasant after: Calories.

What about the imperial regalia being sent to Constaniople? That is a pretty significant symbolic end to the Western Roman empire.

The title emperor implies an empire. If your territory is shrunk to tiny or vastly smaller than any part of the classic empire, can you actually be called an emperor?

@robertohlen4980

Жыл бұрын

Emperor as we use the it today isn't the same as the latin Imperator, which just means conqueror/winner of battle. The terms used by the late Roman empire was Augustus and Caesar(which continues as Kaiser/Kejsare/Tsar).

@sterlingcampbell2116

Жыл бұрын

Yes, because they controlled more than just the city of Rome itself, making it imperial for it's control of non native land.

@jackwalters5506

Жыл бұрын

@@robertohlen4980 During the time of Diocletian the main title to refer to the Emperors was Dominus et Deus, and after Constantine it was Dominus Noster. Even later after that when Greek replaced Latin as the language of the State the main title was Basileus. Augustus and Caesar were only the main titles during the Principate and Tetrarchy

@AlexiosTheSixth

Жыл бұрын

Emperor used to not mean "ruler of a massive state", but "ruler of the Roman Empire". And there used to be a concept that there could only ever be one emperor which is why the HRE and the Romans in Constantinople had their rivalry over the title.

@ntonisa6636

Жыл бұрын

Please be careful to not confuse ancient Roman titles with certain modern english words and notions of "empire" or "emperor" or "imperialism" which may differ semantically or carry associations which ancient people were not necessarily aware of.

Another misconception is the fall of the Western Roman Empire itself, as those were mere, though quite autonomous subdivision of said Roman Empire, think of it like a federation system but on another level, called the Tetrarchy, a system that create two subdivisions of said Empire for easier management, themselves divided between the August' lands and those governed by their ceasars, a title that was supposed to be given to the one designed by each August to succeed their proper liege. As for why then two monarchs on some kind of equal footing? Think about Sparta with its two kings, the... Binarchy? Not totally sure. You could say it is a binarchy, with two emperors governing different part but still united under the same Empire as a whole, even if only in names as each part was quite autonomous, though, that's that fact that able the Byzantine to remain titled Roman Empire, still, only in names as it gradually became more Greek.

The capital at the time was in Ravenna. If you were in Rome you most likely wouldn't have known anything important was happening for weeks after the coup.

Tbh, the Plague of Justinian probably would have toppled the last vestiges of Western Rome regardless of whether Justinian invaded or not. The wars in Italy certainly didn't help, but I doubt that the Ostrogoths would have been able to keep things together during such a devastating plague.

It's interesting Fact The Romans Not Considered The Fall But Reunification Of Empire For One Emperor.

When the Emperors have really long untrimmed beards, have helmets with horns and are wearing bear skins, we can infer the Empire has fallen. 😊

Well, there are some britons that believe the British Empire is still a thing, even with all the information that we have available in our era, so, it's no surprise than many Romans thought their empire was still running 2 centuries after it collapsed.

So you are saying there was no fall during doman times?

I would like to know how long this new power of senate lasted. What happened after Odoacer and his heir and when did the senate disappear?

09:05 I'm sure the huge army roaming around the broken state didn't have any weight in this support

romulus to romulus sure makes for a great epic but it does not justice to the immense amount of graduality there actually was

It surely is a matter of perspective. This is common in history. A contempory of Napoleon would surely look at France today and describe it as "fallen" - but pinning a date on this would be controversial.... was it Waterloo? Loosing in 1871? The great loss of life in WW1? Or the opening of the floodgates after Algeria?

It would make your case stronger if you reflect Spain and Southern Gaul under the nominally unified empire. Theodoric managed to unify both Gothic kingdoms, so Constantinople's suzerainty extended to the Atlantic.

It begs the question then of why Justinian invaded Italy and if he was ignorant that he was doing it more harm than good. What would have been the perspective of a resident of Rome from before 536 to after 554? The subjects of separate video(s), perhaps?

@archenema6792

Жыл бұрын

It raises the question. "Begs the question" is a specific term of logic that denotes a tautology, sometimes called a circular argument, wherein the conclusion of an argument is surreptitiously inserted onto the premises. This term applies to nothing else but a tautology.

@7Tacit

Жыл бұрын

@@archenema6792 Sorry that you were confused and thought that I was erroneously referring to the logical fallacy in my comment. I know that my statement was very ambiguous in meaning, and I didn't mean to infringe the logicians' guild's copyright anyhow.

We should not forget that there were "some more" barbaric emperors of the west: From Charlemagne and the Carolingians (Francs, with their renaissance of ancient Roman culture and empire) over Otto the Great, 1st "German" emperor of the Roman Empire of German nation, which lasted until 1806.

It looks more like a change of management

Roman Senate under Odoacer: The Senate will decided the fate of Rome. General Besilarius: It's treason then.

When I look at the Roman empire in the 5th century before 476 I see the 3rd century all over again, and just like how diocletian "saved" the empire in 285, in many ways the barbarian kings in Italy, Spain and Gaul "saved" the empire for another 50-100 years after 476. As far as power and prestige is concerned though, definitely the Rome "fell" in the 5th century. The Empire looked like it was about to fall in the 3rd century, and in 271 Aurelian built walls around Rome for the first time. Arguably that was an event as significant as the events of 476. Even though the power of the city of Rome declined compared to other cities like Mediolanum or Constantinople in the 3rd and 4th centuries, it wasn't until the 5th century that the prestige of the city was eroded first by the Goths in 410 then the Vandals in 455. When I look at 5th century Rome, it looks similar to the 3rd century except this time around Rome does get sacked. And there is no cataclysmic collapse of the state because like in the 3rd century, the state in the 5th century was in the process of disintegration. What Odoacer did seems a lot like what Diocletian did earlier. Reformed the state by establishing a brand new polity. He would not try to be an emperor in his own right but rule as king on the behalf of the emperor in the East. This arrangement was more stable than what came before until the 530s. Rome was sacked twice and besieged once between 410 and 476. It was sacked and besieged zero times between 476 and 530. It was in the 6th century that I think the last vestiges of Roman empire fell - between the 3 sieges and 2 sacks of Rome during the Gothic Wars, the plague of Justinian and later Lombard invasion. Because the Lombards could not conquer all of Italy, henceforth Italian peninsula would be politically permanently divided until the 19th century.