🎁 The full list of perks we offer to our patrons: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus

Totally agree with the Battle of Frigidus! During the last 250 years of western Romes existence, the Romans seemed incapable of understand that civil war is bad for everyone in the long run

@EinFelsbrocken

2 жыл бұрын

"Wait killing ourselves is bad???🤨🤔🤔🤔" - the romans; for around 1000 years continuously

@oedipusrex353

2 жыл бұрын

@@EinFelsbrocken rebolt :::DDD - Africa, Illyria and Pannonia for no fucking reason, just after the current emperor ended another rebellion

@doppelwaffen

2 жыл бұрын

Rome faced civil wars for almost 600 years. If you are able to defeat your rivals, you are strong enough to cope with Rome's enemies. That's how the system worked. In the 5th century the system collapsed tue do intervention from the east.

@plusxz821

2 жыл бұрын

Sorry but Western rome deserved to fall

@EMcKelvyF

2 жыл бұрын

@@plusxz821 deserved to? It's not a living thing but it's many pieces are, I doubt the farmers of northern Italy deserved to have their houses burned and their families raped and enslaved. Js

Stilicho Made the correct choice by pulling troops to Italy because if he had lost that battle the Empire would have been most likely overthrown had they lost

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, very probably. The troops that were destroyed during the battle of the Frigidus River would have been needed.

Baron Zemo: "An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again. But one which crumbles from within? That's dead. Forever."

I think main problem was corruption, greed and that Rome forgot its roots. Selfishness of individuals defeated the empire

10:16 I think that despite the battle of the Frigidus River, this would have been very possible if Britannia was abandoned earlier. That was arguably the 2nd best thing done under Honorius's reign, the 1st being his death obviously. This would have possibly prevented the rebellion of Constantine III, the man who deposed the local governor and took the legions south to press his "claim", this would save a lot of time and manpower for the empire and definitely leave Gaul in a better state. And maybe King Arthur wouldn't be betrayed by Mordred since he wouldn't have to campaign in Gaul, thus leaving Britannia safe for re-incorporation later on. The statement about Arthur is a joke, and realistically, it would rid Rome of a province, but Britannia was arguably more trouble than it was worth, and it was going to be lost anyway if its link to Rome was separated due to the 406 crossing, not only was it an economic and geographic liability, it was also a political weight too because it served as a stepping stone for usurpers like Magnus Maximus, Constantine III and so on. In summary, the crossing of the Rhine could have been prevented if Britannia was abandoned earlier without a glory-hound doing it to start a civil war and negate all the benefits of this action doing so.

@jelkel25

Жыл бұрын

Leaving the Gallic empire intact would have given it a big enough tax base, enough manpower and infrastructure to look after itself though you would have had to rely on it not trying to take Italy, which you couldn't. A real shame an understanding couldn't have been reached as an additional independent pro Roman power block might have been enough to get the empire through the bad emperor's.

@barrett206

Жыл бұрын

Honorius wasnt even that bad, he was in the worst possible situation and was young and his court lied to him many times

Maybe the beginning of the end lay with the first emperor, Augustus. His settlement, while it had many strong points, never adequately adressed the problem of imperial succession and continuity of government. The seeds of collapse were there at the beginning.

@benqurayza7872

Жыл бұрын

This discussion has revolved around the chance appearance of different personalities. But, knowing what we know, the Roman system could possibly have been designed differently to ensure its long term survival.

The political boundaries of the Empire are one thing. But if there's one person to blame for the collapse of classical Roman civilization in Italy, I feel like the blame has to go on Justinian and his gothic wars, which is really ironic because it seems like he really wanted to be the next Aurelian.

5:57 or possibly if Valentinian I did not die from his own anger in 375 and lived long enough to help Valens would things be different. Another event that could have saved the empire from falling could be if Anthemius in 472 got the letter from Leo I before Ricimer got his hands on it, thus he would immediately kill of Ricimer and no longer be a puppet. Or if Justinian I really had a succession plan, or if his cousin Germanus who was supposed to succeed him lived rather than having an untrained successor (Justin II) take the throne. Great video and anyway and interesting points you have!

@aaronTGP_3756

Жыл бұрын

Agree with Valentinian. However, I think Germanus would still have died before Justinian. Justinian lived for 83 years, and that would be difficult to outlive. Instead, Germanus' son, the better Justin, would be Emperor.

I cannot even express how much I love your videos. Keep them coming. Tremendous concept.

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks a lot my friend, really appreciate your kind words :)

Im enjoying your content! I do hope you touch on Germanus's random death(Justinians heir who was married to the Ostrogothic princess). He was deployed west and would be seen as legitimate having married into the Amal line. Preventing the Ostrogoths from siding the Lombards when they threatened invasion and this also could allow for the complete reconquest of Hispania seeing as Theoderic the Great was also ruler of Visigothic spain. Italy, Africa and all of hispania and you see we're 75% there with resurrecting Western Rome. Then there's Phocas Usurpation which altered the course of not only Roman, but world history. Maurice had finally relocated the bulk of his army to the western territories of the empire, now having concluded a peace with Persia, He then successfully re-established the danubian border- I believe that had Phocas not revolted- these armies would have pushed westwards, into Italy and likely further on. I always found the above what ifs very interesting.

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

2 жыл бұрын

Excellent comment, thanks for sharing. These are also very interesting what if's, certainly. I intend to do quite some videos on Justinian's reconquests, and in that time there are also many fascinating what if's, even up to Constans II.

@jaredgarbo3679

2 жыл бұрын

It also provoked a further war the the Sassanids which allowed Islam to spread.

Glad YT recommended ur channel, great video and overall great stuff. It's ironic, how Theodosius "the Great" after saving the eastern part of the empire, de facto sentenced the western part to death by initiating another civil war and naming Honorius his succesor in the west.

@septimiusseverus343

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, Theodosius was decent and capable ruler, but his two civil wars totaled the Western Roman Army to the point where the West was at the mercy of Foederati. His religious decrees didn't do much good for social cohesion either, as Arians and pagans began to opt out of serving a state that cracked down on their way of life. A good emperor, but by no means great.

@igorsimac391

2 жыл бұрын

For Theodosius it was more important to be Christian then to be Roman, hence the colapse...

What I will never understand is how an Empire like Rome, with it's superior logistics and hugh population, was barely able to muster an army that could withstand ONE barbaric tribe at best. Germanic countries must have been insanely populated and in a way centralized if they could bring ten thousands of men to the battlefield?!

@oedipusrex353

2 жыл бұрын

I can clear that up a bit. Many of the tribes were migratory, meaning the entire goddamn nation moved. Thus the entire male population was mobilized for military service.

@alexmuller6752

2 жыл бұрын

also, the big ones were confederations of tribes

@ozegovich3649

2 жыл бұрын

Dont forget the plagues and civil wars that crippled the Empire heavily

@Quickshot0

2 жыл бұрын

Romes constant internal infighting sapped it of a lot of its strength. If you keep killing your own armies, you then don't have them to fight other enemies. Just like if you don't have a way so that talented commanders can be trusted to serve the states interest, you get a constant effort by some of them to over throw the government, and thus paranoia against the others with measures taken to reduce or eliminate their level of threat. Thus also eliminating much of your more talented commanders.

@lordaeron15

Жыл бұрын

And dont forget that although they had a huge population they also had a huge border to guard so not all soldiers could be sent to fight the tribes or the rest of their borders would have gone unguarded…😊

Interesting analyses. If only.... but then we would all be italians wouldn't we? Would that be an improvement? or just an alternative reality? Empires fail when the citizens/leaders take for granted what they have inherited. This is in the nature of humans and cannot be avoided. The strength of humans is their ability to adapt to their environment. The weakness of humans is their inability to understand what went into creating that environment. We witness the same in current events.

I love your videos, the fall of Rome is a topic that always interested me, and it seems to be more complex than what most historians tell us.

Another big problem is climate change. The Danube river had froze over which led many Barbarians over run its borders. Also north Africa increased in becoming a desert.

Awesome breakdowns. I don't know much about the late Roman Empire but these are super interesting you're doing an amazing job here. Keep it up!

We’ve been to Rome 30 times ! I am passionately obsessed about your Roman topics. Love your 476

GREATs like AURELIAN and MAJORIAN were true, heroic reformer warriors. What happened to them was such a morally evil betrayal

Great stuff boss! Loving your content. Keep up the good work

Great Video! I am glad that I discovered your channel.

Great video!

Fantastic video!

These videos are Amazing, please don't stop making them

Very good video. Can't wait for the next video!

Nice content man!! I've watched all your videos so far and everyone of them are perfect!! Good luck with your channel these videos deserve the views!!

Thank you!

These topics that you bring to life are invaluable to us ! The condition of the circus Maximus and colosseum etc after 476 and beyond the centuries fascinates me. Hence 30 trips to Rome

These videos are great the content/images you use for them are perfect! keep it up bro

Your videos are brillant! Thank you so much, may this channel grow like Rome under Caesar

Nice job Maior! Part 2 soon?

I think it was more than just a few critical military defeats. The military defeats were merely a symptom of deeper problems in the Empire. I think first and foremost: there was a fundamental defect in the Roman government. And that was that there was no certain method for succession to the Imperial throne. This led to a situation where various generals and politicians would have themselves declared Emperor. Chaos was the inevitable result. In some ways, the Romans spent more energy fighting each other, than they did the barbarians. Another, deeper aspect to the critical defeats you mention. And that was the Roman military thinking (and society in general) was extremely conservative. Afraid of innovation. I've read that even 200 years after Julius Caesar, that the basic Roman battle tactics were still basically the same as Julius used. This caused such things as failure to fully develop cavalry. Which the barbarians had done, such as the Goths at Adrianople. And was a major factor in the defeat of the Romans. Who still continued to rely on the foot soldier.

@FalseNomen

11 ай бұрын

Well said. My own thoughts, too. Any particular battle against a barbarian tribe was not the main reason--the Roman state in its past had show an amazing ability to absorb crushing defeats and bounce back. Political rot, stemming from instability at the top, seems to be the problem that affected all others. I read, I think it was from Adrian Goldsworthy, the observation that the sidelining of the senatorial class had the later effect of greatly expanding the number of potential rivals to the throne. If any random equestrian with an army thought he could roll the dice by assassinating the emperor, the system was doomed.

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

3 ай бұрын

Very good observation, you should check out my other videos with another 10 reasons for the Fall, the lack of succession system is in there as well :)

I always wonder why Theodosius is given the title "the great". the man shut down the pagan temples, ordered roman citizens massacred to appease barbarian's, gave a barbarian king the funerary rites of a emperor.. Worst of all in such troubled times he divided the empire between his two awfully inept sons at a time when it needed to stand unified with a strong leader.

@jonathancummings6400

2 жыл бұрын

It's because he was the last man to competently rule the whole empire. Also, it was wise to try to get along with the dangerously powerful "Barbarians'! Avitus was the last man who could really have restored the West because he got along well with the people in control of Gaul and Spain, the Visigoths, they would have helped him take North Africa from the Vandals who they loathed, they would have helped him retake Britain. They also probably have been willing to pay taxes as Roman citizens.

@lordofhostsappreciator3075

2 жыл бұрын

The first is the best thing about him 👍🏼 Holy & Right Believing Theodosius, pray for us! ☦

@natehensley8810

2 жыл бұрын

Agree, he was a lot more successful in civil wars than against the goths. His dad probably deserved the title more.

@serbancaciula9528

2 жыл бұрын

Probably because the massacre is fiction.

@martinpakes5436

Жыл бұрын

He was given this title by the church for his unflinching persecution of non-Christians

I must respect your extensive knowledge on the subject. However after watching some of your videos regarding this time period I feel their is one Roman emperor you consistently underrate. Claudius Gothicus Claudius II laid the foundation so Aurelian could focus on 'restitut de orbis'. So massive was his victory that it can be argued the victory pushed the Goths back for a century. Until Adrianople.

@Blaqjaqshellaq

2 жыл бұрын

Probus and Carus also bought time for Diocletian to restructure the Empire.

Please keep making these videos!

While watching this and hearing you refer to the possibility of the survival of the Roman Empire for an indefinite amount of time, it made me think of the many states that wouldn’t exist in such a case. Do you think eventually states like france etc would come about? How would this affect world events to come? A video about this would be, as this one is, very interesting! Keep up the great work!

@yaboyed5779

2 жыл бұрын

France would still be Gaul

The early death of Julian the Apostate did not help matters.

At the 10 minute mark I thought that was the end of the video, I was so happy to see I had another 12 minutes go watch!

Nice, I’m crying on a Wednesday morning, lovely

4:02 I didn't know they had cameras back then?

Nice video.

I had a very hard time finding your site because of the difficult spelling (in english but, it's done in english). Unless the spelling is exact- this site will not appear on KZread search. That's a shame- the content is great!

Excellent

Didn't Odoacer and the Ostrogoths in fact stabilize "The ***** Empire"? The period between 476 and the roman invasion was actualy one of stability and reconstruction. Unfortunaly did the invasion coincide withthe Justinian pleague and abrupt climate change due to the Krakatoa eruption in 536.

This issue with some of these, such as what if they won this battle or what if this civil war didn't happen, is that they don't solve the underlying issues. After the Crisis of the Third Century things never really improved. Civil Wars got worse and more frequent, the position of Magister Militum became a power to compete with and often control the Emperor. The denarius continued to decline in value. That last one was the most important, as it was the true culprit on why the Western Army couldn't recover from Frigidus, they couldn't get new recruits because there was no incentive. A legionaire would get shit pay, no land, and no priveleges. The declining value of the Denarius was a self reinforcing downward spiral. As it became worth less, the financial situation became worse, so the currency was devalued futherer so that more could be minted and the people were straddled with worse taxes, which caused widespread unrest and peasant rebellions, which made the financial situation worse, etc etc. The only way it could survive at all would be to reclaim Africa and then abandon everything except Italy and Africa. The deeper issues the Empire faced were to great for them to solve while having to face many external enemies as well

@cliffordjensen8725

Жыл бұрын

I tend to agree with you. I think the cooling climate of the 3rd century, causing widespread starvation, plagues, civil unrest, and foreign incursions crippled Western Empire's tax base to such an extent that survival was impossible.

@theforbiddenpotato8032

Жыл бұрын

I'm pretty sure proto-Freudlsim was starting to appear around this time too.

It would be good to see a deep dive on the barbarian tribes such as the Visigoths and the Vandals

Nice, could you do a vid on Gallienus

Boniface was a real disaster. He invited the Vandals to cross from Spain and was responsible for the loss of that province. St Augustine died during the siege in 430.

Rome fell because it's key institutions decayed below an acceptable level of efficacy.

I would like to present my own reasons for the fall, which shouldve been prevented, although not as precise as yours as most of them dont oin down a specific event. Also its up to the date you have made the video 1) Christianity declared as the only religion 2) Split of the empire 3) Barbarian migrations 1) Pretty much destroyed its culture, prevented barbarian integrations and destroyed fabric of society 2) Economic and military collapse 3) Acceleration of previous collapse, due to loss of land, economy, recruits and so on, due to mercenary payments being land itself, as well as many other factors. I have made other 3 points of collapse, but i will present them in the next video.

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

2 жыл бұрын

Hi, yes and I agree, I actually have exactly these reasons in my other video about the Top10 reasons for the fall of the roman empire. You could actually find 20+ reasons, it is really a complex interplay of many factors as you correctly pointed out.

@andreasalvarani8598

2 жыл бұрын

​@@Maiorianus_Sebastian I think the main reason of the fall stems from a long time before, Augustus and Tiberius refusal to conquer Germania, at least to the Oder, a plan that Germanicus was ready to put in action the year following the battles of the Idistavisus and the Agrarian Wall. To put it simply the Rhine legions were too close to Rome for comfort and ended up being the powerbrokers for most of the Empire. Had they been located several hundred kilometres more East and with a much longer time to reach Italy they would have been too far removed to play a major part in the emperor's succession. Not to mention that the limes would have been much shorter.

@EMcKelvyF

2 жыл бұрын

@@andreasalvarani8598 that's a well put point. I very much agree with the fact that pushing into the Rhine would have put distance with them and Roman political bs. However as stated in some other videos I've watched, it was just to great an expense to winterize the army for the harsh Winters of the area. They in fact did push well into the Rhine heartland and had an almost constant presence there but had to pull out every winter. It could have been done but it would have been costly, obviously longevity of the Empire alone would have been worth those costs though. Maybe if the early Empire had just gone through with it, it "could" have become stable enough even by the third century crises.

When are you doing a video on the Gothic wars of the mid 6th century?

Like the old saying , ‘ it’s not what you do, it’s what you set in motion.’

One overlooked key point was the regency of Galla Placidia. In the 420s and 430s, when Rome was collapsing, it was "ruled" by a 5 year old child and governed by a woman.

Every time I read about or see something about Magister Militum, then Emperor, Maiorianus I cry evry time. He was so great. The people that killed him and helped his downfall are still being tortured in hell for all time.

Rome never died, it lives in our hearts. Roma invicta ⚔️

A special place in Hades is set for Honorious...

History is doomed to repeat itself from the inside!

Reading the video description, I see you've read your Gibbon. No matter what modern, pc busybody academics say, he is one of the greatest historians. The objectivity, stringent language, depth of wise analysis, are just brilliant. Also, if more people read his work, they would hear the warning trumpets blaring over the West.

I tend to have a more Spenglerian take on this. Civilizations have a natural life cycle. A period of gestation followed by a period of conquest and trade, afterwards it reaches a period of civil war and consolidation. An age of prosperity follows. After that comes an age of decadence and slow decline. Towards the end, there is collapse. Rome followed this natural life cycle, twice. Its best to look at the Roman Empire as two civilizations due to biological makeup of the population. The Roman Republic was largely a Latin affair, whereas the Roman Empire was a multiracial state. The Republic gestated during the period of the Kingdom and early republic. Expanded greatly during the Punic wars. Had massive civil wars in the late republican era followed by the sexual degeneracy and low birth rates characteristic of late Empires. The Republic collapsed with Augustus's victory over Antony. The original stock of Rome had largely been replaced by foreigners by the time of Augustus. The old Patrician families had been extinguished by civil wars and purges while the population had been replaced by slaves and foreigners. The Empire started off as an Italian affair but became multicultural as time went on. There were great conquests during the early principate era followed by a period of great prosperity during the 5 good emperors. Then began a period of civil war after the death of commodus and then a period of consolidation under Constantine. But from there on, the Romans started an inexorable decline. Sexual degeneracy was rampant, slaves and foreigners overran the Italian peninsula and Italians themselves were largely absent from the army. The fatal blows were struck by the Rhine crossing of 406 and the sack of Rome in 410.

@AdSd100

2 жыл бұрын

Great points. And I cannot agree more with the statement that Rome fell twice.

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

2 жыл бұрын

Really good comment, thanks for posting !

@astrobullivant5908

2 жыл бұрын

Where Spengler goes wrong is in neglecting how a civilization can adapt by reorienting its government.

@gregmattson2238

2 жыл бұрын

possibly, but definitely not certain. we view history in only one way, the way that it went. replay the tape, and things could turn out very differently. In fact I'd say that is one of the real downsides of a highly hierarchical system of government - you are really at the mercy of a handful of people (emperors). If the first roman emperor was, say caligula, you very well could have not HAD an empire to start with. If there were a series of good emperors who were adept at reform, making the empire more integrated and cosmopolitan (like say the persian empire) it could have lasted for hundreds of years more. There is always the tension of this in civilizations. The civil war and the gilded age in the US is a good example; america almost came apart at the seams then, but a series of decent presidents and good policy (think abraham lincoln, grover cleveland, teddy roosevelt) steered us away from true disaster. And the US faces a similar situation now - will we snap out of this collective delusional state that we have or will we go back to good governance?

@johna.4334

2 жыл бұрын

Donald Trump is our last great hope.

There were a lot of problems, but a huge one was never figuring out a peaceful transfer of power from emperor to emperor. Seriously thats some basic shit Augustus should've figured out in the early 1st century CE.

I thinks that the One of the best what if underrated : what if Alexander severus survived/start the second offensive campaign against ardashir/had a more loyal army to exploit the Alliance with hatra parthians an Armenia against sassanids?

The visigoths didn't really become a separate entity for a generation, by that time many were of roman descent. It resembles a civil war by that time rather than a barbarian invasion.

Seems like some history might repeat itself in Western Europe soon

There are many issues in this shallow analysis (and that's a problem of non-materialist history: "it's the economy, stupid!"). The most important issue is the economy: devaluation was not caused by the political-military crisis but by deep issues that were never solved: the early Empire (late Republic and most of the Principate) basically exploited vast gold and silver reserves in Hispania, Dacia, etc. and wasted them buying oriental luxuries, mostly via the Ptolemaic sea route to India (but also via Parthia/Persia, which pocketed a large profit as middle man). This caused scarcity of silver and thus devaluation of the currency. The Diocletian austericidal and ill-thought reforms only aggravated the problem, destroying the internal and northern trade networks and thus impoverishing the Empire (and probably also the Germanics beyond the limes). This is something that persisted after the fall of Rome: Europe in general, in spite of new mine discoveries that allowed the some recovery in the middle-late Middle Ages, was deficitary in silver (and, barring Greece, lacked also gold). Being oligarchic it was always thirsting for luxuries like silk or spices (which are unncessary but were much desired by the rich), this would eventually produce the European colonialist expansion since the 15th century, first in search of the gold of Sudan, then of exotic spices, etc. I was hoping for a comparison with China, the only empire that compared with Rome (or vice versa) but nope. It could be interesting (succession system, populist "mandate of Heaven" favoring reformist new rulers, no adoption of any totalitarian state religion, etc.) but anyhow it is interesting here that China was also deficitary in silver but what they did was trying to promote their exports and limit their imports (what eventually lead to the opium wars but has been reinstated again recently). Rome did not export almost anything however: it had no industry other than domestic and military (which was state-owned and meant to serve only the Roman Army), it may have been "an empire of cities" but the cities were not really well developed, the overall model was agrarian and of services and focused on luxuries for the all-powerful oligarchs almost exclusively. In short: Rome was not economically sustainable and the only hope to prevent the fall was to make it sustainable, what was never done. Instead the oligarchy favored ruralization and basically sleepwalked to the Dark Ages, to Feudalism. The only "mandata of Heaven" it got was destructive and reformed in the wrong direction, maybe because of lack of large peasant revolts, which were always fragmented and localized and not Empire-wide, which may have been caused by the ethno-geographical complexity of the Empire (in comparison China was somewhat simpler and more homogenously "ethno-national"). Without addressing all this: the root economic causes, it's impossible to understand why Rome collapsed. Add the Hunnic migration to the mix, which was the trigger rather than the deep cause and also has to do with China, which expelled the Huns or Xiongnu, precursors of the Turkic peoples, and accidentally set the chain of events that destroyed the Roman Empire (or its Western half if you prefer). But this was only the strong kick that threw down a very rotten door.

@N238E

7 ай бұрын

Bro I literally just read the comment you posted on DPA's channel. You are everywhere! What are you, some kind of professional analyst or something?! You always write a mini-doctoral thesis. How do you know so much?

@N238E

7 ай бұрын

Your third and fourth paragraph really reminded me of the US. No industry, just a service based economy, and becoming less and less sustainable. It's going to happen here too.

@LuisAldamiz

7 ай бұрын

@@N238E - That's largely true but the USA is a major primary exporter (arguably thanks to massive subsidies and deregulation). This is key because the USA (its oligarchs, obviously not the common people) are making huge profits of selling stuff that we, Europeans, used to buy from Russia like gas, petrol, cereals, seed oil or fertilizers. Notice the pattern? Except for fertilizers, those are primary sector produce. As far as I understand deindustrializing is not aimed at replacing European products by US ones (that may be the next step, when the war with China begins but not quite yet, although some sanctions do exist against China and the once promising Huawei has vanished from European markets, it seems), it is rather aimed at weakening European sovereignty altogether, so Europe does not operate as regional power(s) independent from US diktats. Once the axis of Imperialism (understood as competition between global hegemons) has moved to the Pacific region, Europe is relatively expendable and, would it unite, its objective interests dangerously align with those of China (or India or both) and compete with the US consolidated hegemony in the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. Hence Europe must be downgraded (from a US imperial viewpoint) or else it can only grow independent and thus dangerous competition for the US Empire. Ironically Russia is in some agreement with this: they also would not want a strong united and sovereign India-like Europe (and some even dream in Moscow of restoring ties with the USA vs China, for real) and their goal is very obviously to fragment Europe into nation-states pitted against each other (while the USA rather prefers the current status quo, logically, but downgrading Europe economically and diplomatically several notches, and always making sure it is loyal to the US imperial designs). Anyhow, the US and European economies are extremely entangled at the top and that's how the USA, which is top dog also in terms oligarchy, rules Europe: by owning the media, the banks... and the secret services.

@LuisAldamiz

7 ай бұрын

@@N238E - I'm actually unemployed. Do you have a job for me as professional analyst? I'm very affordable... I'd work for the minimum wage even... How do I know so much? I do wonder, but guess that reading and debating for many decades helps. I'm old enough and smart enough and don't waste my time in taverns anymore... I can still be wrong.

The other factors were the plagues which destroyed the Roman Base population to raise troops. There were droughts which displaced some of these Tribal Nationals and cause a decrease in food production In the Roman Territory. Also, the Roman population had there national pride and spirit broken by the corruption of the Roman Leaders add the tension between Christianity And Paganism. All examples of a divisive underlining factors in the society

Aurelian is so underrated.

This video makes me mad and sad 😭😭 I wish it wouldn't have happened.

Majorian could have, no, should have. God bless.

Guys will see this and think "Hell yeah!"

Nietzsche mentioned, that not bad emperors and the barbarians caused the downfall, actually it was a new religion, called Christianity. I guess there was another reason: The Roman nobility practiced a "one heir policy" to avoid troubels among the heirs. So maybe one or the other great Roman citizen never was born.

Quando Deus determina um tempo, para tudo esse tempo termina.

To be honest these arguments seem pretty silly, we must ask why the empire found itself in such a position to begin with.

Smooth voice :0

Had the Romans aided the Ostragothic kingdom against the Huns, it would have prevented the flow of Gothic refugees west which eventually resulted in the defeat at Adrianople and probably the Hunnic invasion of the West.

The definition of "saved," gets looser as time goes on.

Like Marcus Aurelius wanting his son Commodus to succeed him was a disaster, Theodosius (the not-so great) wanted his sons Honorius and Arcadius to succeed him. They were both incompetent and useless. Whether, though, anyone could have done anything to make up for the defeat at Adrianople, I do not know. On the surface, Theodosius did well but promoting the interests of Visigoths, as he did, was a long term strategic mistake. Stilicho did his best with limited resources.

9:38 if Thedosius acceoted Eugenius there is a possibilty Eugenius attack the eastern oart

Point 3 is nonsensical. The Roman army had organized an in depth defense of the Rhine and other borders since long. Because they were not capable at all of totally preventing all crossings. The simple sad fact is that beginning with Theodosius the Romans were too busy with their numerous civil wars. Wikipedia mentions 9. Some were fought Gallia while invading barbarians were freely looting nearby.

Bro when is the US going to break into three parts?

I’m regards to Adrianople agree Valens had people under him that bungled the refugee situation and resulted in a large group of pissed off goths who wrecked havoc. Had they gave them decent land and tried to assimilate them I believe they would have become a bulwark against the Huns. Think another issue is really incompetent emperors and officials in the later empire where the East may not have had great emperor but they were competent. Also killing Stillico seeing he was one of the few generals with a winning record against barbarian tribes. Seemed like everyone was out for themselves as the empire slowly fell apart. Seeing this is late Roman channel I’m currently listening to Power and Thrones by Dan Jones that goes over the late empire in great detail including the empire and barbarian details. Excellent book documenting how Romes fall made the way for the barbarian groups to become prominent and bring forth the Middle Ages.

There is no chance when an empire loose the favor of gods

A house divided against itself can not stand

As a Dane I'm glad my forefathers the Cimbri, never got to sack the Roman empire entirely.. it would have destroyed more than it was good for.

We want to search out the gate where Alaric entered Rome in AD 476

I see it more that Rome was incredibly lucky to of had such a brilliant commander as “Stilicho” at the time that it did. If it wasn’t for him, Rome would of fallen even sooner. If you rerolled the time period 10 times, I think Rome would of fallen 9/10 at best. IMO, Rome’s best chance of a successful revival was the 6th century. Very unlucky century.

But is it not true that the population of the Roman empire declined relative to its barbarian counterparts starting in the 300s? If so does that not imply some sort of relative decline and even the fall of the Roman empire was going to take place sooner or later ?

After 275, the fate of Roman Empire was inevitably downward. Roman elite should have realized that the Empire was exhausting their resources in ceaseless campaigns in the East Danube frontier, North Germany territories and the Middle East due to continous conflicts with Persian Empire. A republic that is submitted to the apetites of the Warrior class cannot survive. A militarized state suffocates civil society, curbs any chance of fairness and rule of the law. Such a state breeds Psychopats and corrupt generals fighting for power is one of the fundamental characteristics of Roman empire from the 4th century onwards.

If Germanicus lived and continued his conquest, it would not have fallen.

Everything is brilliantly done, but you added same video footages in every content 🙈

I guess they needed a legislative and judicial.branch, congress and a senate,. all apart from a military. And an insane emperor as a scape goat.

While it was not inevitable than Rome should have fallen, all empires fall eventually. Every Chinese empire, the Mongols, the British, Spanish, Ottoman, Mughal, Russian, Portuguese, Dutch, Japanese, and so on.

Surely using barbarian troops to annihilate a Roman army and instill his minor son Honorius must rank Theodosius the Great as one of the worst emperors

So it wasn’t Honorius but Theodosius that was the worst. He fought Adrianople and placed Honorius in the throne.

would things have been better if it had? is that like lamenting the death of dinosaurs? if they had lived, we could not

Lets be honest, Theodosius who was a christian fanatic (or pretended to be one) would NEVER accept a pagan to be western roman emperor. The massive disaster at the Frigidus river couldn't be avoided unless Theodosius was somehow murdered but then the East would have collapsed. As for the Rhine crossing, it's clear that after Frigidus it couldn't be stopped and was more or less inevitable. Finally, i want to offer one of my own possibilities. What about if Gratian chose another capable leader for the East but NOT Theodosius. Without Theodosius there's a possibility that there's no Frigidus and no emperor Honorius.

This narrator sounds like Dr. Frankenstein's lab assistant.

No do overs. That is what inevitability is.

Why should an empire of notorious slaveholders and slave traders survive at all? 😁 BTW I love your series (also if I do not agree with all statements).

Not to rain on your parade so to say but this reminds me of a comment on a nozi alt hist video where someone said "long story short the nozis would have won if they weren't nozis"

I'm skeptical of learning things on KZread because you never know who you're learning from.