The first 1,000 people to use the link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/maiorianus12221 😉

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

You are pagan apologist not an objective Historian first other larger battles happened like the Battle of Mursa Major which was the bloodiest battle during the forth century over 50000 soldiers were killed. Second eugenius was an useper there is no way That Theodosius would have allowed an usurper Also religious conflicts between pagans and Christians did not happen because the pagans were irrelevant minority . Also even if eugenius stayed as emperor paganism was still dying even before Gratian paganism was declaining

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@Joe Washington not true . Historians do not agree with you

@JTL1776

Жыл бұрын

Please make a what if Stilicho wasn't assassinated.

It is said that "for evil to triumph, good men must do nothing." But Majorian's tragedy shows us that sometimes a good man can do his heart and soul to stop evil and still unfortunately fail. Majorian is a heroic martyr.

@RexGalilae

Жыл бұрын

That's debatable. Ricimer's barber could have always slit his treacherous throat in the name of Rome but he decided to do nothing 😫

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@RexGalilae ricimer was just a military commander

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

The Roman empire was stagnant totalitarian dictatorship it was better for Europe that the empire fall

@vitorpereira9515

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203 You forgot that the Roman Empire wasn't dissolved until 1453, didn't you?

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@vitorpereira9515 sure but it was becoming less and less important and powerful throughout the centuries

Theodosius: "WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO VALENTINIAN II?!" Arbogast: "It was a horrible tragedy, Caesar. Valentinian was calmly walking through the Palace when he accidentally tripped over a loose stone, causing his head to get caught in a rope that someone had left hanging there. What bad luck some have, right?" 🤷

@johnmcgarvey4758

Жыл бұрын

A Roman Epstein. 😃

@BryantMoore87

Жыл бұрын

@@johnmcgarvey4758 Valentinian had information that would lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.

@johnmcgarvey4758

Жыл бұрын

@@BryantMoore87 :😀

@groscolisdery1158

Жыл бұрын

Is this Arkansas? That was about the Roman Ieffrius Epstenius

@DISTurbedwaffle918

Жыл бұрын

"He just kinda killed himself. Didn't even leave a note. Quite rude, if you ask me."

I will say only two things. 1, I agree it was important and tragic battle like you say. 2, there could have been similar battle year later, or ten years, doesnt matter, the structural problem was there and it would be the same.

Over the course of several videos you have managed to convince me that the 394 AD Battle of the Frigidus River was indeed the most important event for what happened to the West Roman Empire after that. Thanks for a good analysis.

@doublem1975x

Жыл бұрын

Adrianople was more devastating. 1/3 of the entire Roman army died in one day, including emperor Valens. It all could been prevented to had the Romans not badly abused the Gothic refugees.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

During the fourth century there was far worse battle which killed over 50000 Roman soldiers

@danielcarroll1193

Жыл бұрын

Then u could convince u of anything

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@danielcarroll1193 I can not be confined to believing In nonsense

@jamiemcintosh3030

Жыл бұрын

Was it not at least two-thirds oc the army dead?

Don't dispair. There would be probably another battle that would have done the job.

@larsius5120

Жыл бұрын

Yes! Unfortunately, history repeats itself all the time…

@alexanders2757

Жыл бұрын

True. The empire was in self destruct mode by then.

Will there be a video about the Mauro Roman kingdoms of North Africa?

@larsius5120

Жыл бұрын

Yes a great Idea!

If, as Christians say, Theodosius' victory at the Battle of Frigidus was a divine intervention, then even God was fed up with the Roman Empire and its dismal decline.

@vitorpereira9515

Жыл бұрын

The empire become too corrupt up to that point and worse many germanic generals were leading armies more loyal to them then to whoever was the emperor. Edit: And I haven't even mentioned the devaluation of Roman coins which did the economy no good.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

Not true first other larger big battles happened like the Battle of Mursa Major Which was the bloodiest battle during the forth century over 50000 people died

@LordWyatt

Жыл бұрын

Have you ever heard the tale of the Statue of Nebuchadnezzar? The head was gold (neo-Babylon), arms and chest of silver (Medes/Persians), thighs of bronze (kingdom of the Greeks) and feet of iron and clay (Rome). There are others like the Four beasts but let’s focus on the statue: the division and decline of the Empire was foretold by God long before it happened. Also why there wasn’t a fifth empire (or perhaps it was referring to who owned Judea/coming of Jesus rather than a world-spanning empire🤔)

@mathewwade4619

Жыл бұрын

@@LordWyatt yup, a good prophecy can be interpreted to mean almost anything :)

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@mathewwade4619 if you are so clever than make your own prophecy

Justinian's Plague (the Black Death) of the 6th century AD would have had an undoubtedly more devastating effect on the Western Roman Empire, (as it really did on the Eastern Roman Empire) if it was still intact. Certainly, the Eastern Empire weathered the storm, but could the Western have to the same degree? It's more than possible that the hollowing out of both East & West would have seen them both colliding with each other over lack of help during the Plague or not enough of it. Would the West have been so willing in the early 7th century to help combat the Sassanids and Muslim forces? Probably not after so much strain previuosly.

No offense here but my interest here will be how will the Muslim Arabs reacted when they found out it is impossible to expand out of the Arabian peninsula. They either have to keep it to themselves and simply dispatched delegates to both the Roman Empire and the Iranian Empire or looked down south into Africa for places like Somali instead.

Yeah well done, Sebastian! This battle at frigidus river was one oft he biggest in antiquity! Scientists called important events like that divergence point!

If this battle had never happened, others could have happened later. The flaw laid in the Roman political system, that permanently caused civil wars

Excellent roman empire channel!!!

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

This channel is rubbish

What ifs, love them .

For someone with the moniker "The Great", Theodosius did a lot of things that ended up being not so great for the empire in the grand scheme.

@RexGalilae

Жыл бұрын

That's just Christian propaganda for you. Pagan Emperor who restored the Roman Empire? Let's pretend that never happend Random Emperor who turns into a lapdog for the church? Randomir/Randomius/Randored the GREAT!

@TEverettReynolds

Жыл бұрын

He got the moniker "The Great" only because he was Christian.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@TEverettReynolds no he was great because he was chad

@travisbailey5340

Жыл бұрын

Romaboo Ramblings recently put out a great video explaining that several of the emperors with the title "The Great" got it through a mistranslation of the Greek title, which is more accurately translated as "The Elder". I recommend checking it out.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

he was a successful emperor far better than Julian the video is just a propaganda

A lot to ponder!

Excellent introducing 👌 allot thanks for sharing...yes all political, economic & enlightenment phenomena in all times & around the world they settled as backgrounds, foundations for other phenomena occurred later...agree with you at starting point..in this video

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

He was totally wrong

Innovation would have stagnated potentially to the point that colonisation happened much later and slower potential meaning no settler colonies or scramble for Africa or maybe even colonisation of Asia, since it will allow time for native populations to adapt over a longer time frame

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

You are right our modern world would have been less advanced

@in4ser

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. Rome would likely have been similar to China which stagnated despite long periods of unification and empire.

this is a very intelligent view of a nexus in history. I think you have a good theory there.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

No it is not

In these what if timelines the Western Empire could have survived if it had been lucky and had gotten good Emperors.... A single weakling or a fool as Emperor could have caused the fall later...

@mysterious8152

Жыл бұрын

Read alternate history Germanicus trilogy a novel which the Roman Empire survived.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

Theodosius was a great emperor

Bro every time I imagine a scenario where the Pars Occidentalis survives I always call it the Crisis of the Fifth century and wonder how they would act or react to the Caliphate Invasions of the East🤔👌 Great video

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

The video was pretty bad

The late Empire was not resilient. Even the Republic was able to resist significant losses in the punic wars. It is true, the late Republic has exceptional generals like Marius and Caesar. Perhaps other military commanders could not have conquered Gaul, just as later they could not conquer the German lands.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

During the the late empire the military recruited soldiers only from couple of rural populations

History is a never-ending tragedy.

Excellent video. So well explained!! Our current leaders could learn many lessons from these events. To put aside politics and unite to fix a national problem/s and to not polarize the populace . You have a lot of great vids! Thank you!....."like" and "Subscribing"

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

Bro you are missing the context of this time period tell if you were emperor would you not fight against an useper

Thanks!

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

Жыл бұрын

Hello Dennis, thanks a lot for your kind donation, I really appreciate it a lot :)

Fascinating!

Thanks For This Fantastic Video.

Question (and context): romans lost a lot more people in the punic wars (Battle of Lake Trasimene, Trebia). Why would the battle of Frigidus be so important? Wouldn't rather the real issue be the lack of capability to replace the losses?

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

It was difficult to recruit new solders because all soldiers were only from a couple rulal populations not from the entire empire

@Novusod

Жыл бұрын

Rome's decline was mostly economic in nature not the result of military defeats. The main issue starts with the debasement of the currency so that Roman silver coins completely lost their value. High quality Soldiers became less and less likely to join the Legions which paid them in worthless coins. Only after a long period of rot did the military defeats start to occur. Rome's problems can be traced back as far as 50BC with the opening of the Silk Road. The way the silk trade worked was Rome would buy silk from merchants with silver. Silk from China would move west along the road and Silver would go East to end up in Chinese vaults. After a few centuries of such trade Rome was left with a pile of dust and China had all of Rome's silver. Rome's economy could never stabilize after the 3rd century. There just wasn't enough money to pay the Legions anymore and chaos ensued as people fought over what little scraps were left. One of the main reasons the Eastern Roman empire survived as the Byzantine Empire was that by the 6th century they had figured out how to produce their own silk. In the time of Justinian loyal merchants traveled all the way to China and smuggled silk worm eggs back to Byzantium.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@Novusod the reason for the debasement of the coins was the need for higher military spending of the barbarians and the rise of Persia the root of the collapse of the Roman empire was not economic.

@Novusod

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203 Military spending in the late Republic and early Empire was also very high but it was not a big deal. The soldiers would not sit on the coins they were paid. They would spend the coins in the local economy to buy things and send the remaining coins back to their family. This money would eventually get taxed and end up back in the imperial treasury. It was a closed loop so the soldiers could be paid again and again with the same coins. The concept is called the velocity of money. When the real silver coins ended up in the hands of the silk traders it left the Roman economy. This broke the loop and caused the economy to crash. In the early empire the velocity of money was very high but later on after the debasement occurred the velocity of money fell to almost zero.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@Novusod Frist The military spending during the empire was far bigger second you can not grow the economy with government spending you are describing Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics do not work. Also the sources intricate that larger military spending was proceeding the debasement of the coins during the third century

What I would like for the Romans to do is that in 200 BC they sailed across the Atlantic Ocean and found an American continent.

@PaulZyCZ

Жыл бұрын

There's actually a book trilogy I plan to read sometime. I think the first book is called the Eagle and Eagle (or how was that called). Basically Roman legions sailed to North America and collonized the New World.

With an intact Western Roman Empire in 500 CE who knows what might have happened? Perhaps the citizens of its present-day successor state might be calling it the 5th Republic.

This chanal is amazing. Great to see that this fascinating periode get some attation too. Btw: we are all nerds of the same topic... so, can anyone suggest a good book about the Western Roman Empire 😅

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

I recommend Pieter hither the fall of the Roman empire

@Darth_Keiser

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203 got that already :)

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@Darth_Keiser ok what do you think about the book because it definitely contradicts the anti Christian narrative of this channel

so many legionaries and Roman soldiers killed more in civil wars and internal conflicts than to actually losing to external threats. Just so sad.

Maiorianus, if you do make a video about Valentinian II. May you give him an Alternate timeline? I know there isn’t very much to go on with how little of a character he was, but that is mainly due to his life’s circumstances. Dominated by his mother until her death & then dominated by Arbogast for the remainder of it. He was only 20 or 21 when he was found dead. Maybe a timeline where after the death of Justina, he somehow betas the odds & finds supporters that are loyal to the name of his Father & himself. Since his father was both feared & respected, break the chains on him as he fights a Civil War with Arbogast instead or he escapes & demands for Theodosius’s help, but is refused & turned away, so he builds an Army himself using the prestige of his father’s past victories & the promise of Riches to ensure him a better future? Maybe a reign that last till the 420’s? I always found that Valentinian II never got a chance to live nor a chance to be his own person. In reality He was unhappy with how Arbogast was controlling him, why not build off that? I’ve got a soft spot for the guy, life seemed to kick him in the balls one too many times

Counterfactual history is such fun!

You deal with the late Roman Empire but here thought what if Sulla had made the office of Imperator elective that might have solved some of the succession problems that racked the Roman State. You would have still had assassinations but that might not have led to out-of-control power grabs

@AulusClaudiusNero

Жыл бұрын

It probably would have helped, but any sort of formal succession rule would have made a huge difference. That was the Roman Empire's main weakness from the start, with the murder of Caesar and ensuing civil war. It could have been elective from among the senatorial class, primogeniture, head-of-ruling-house, anything other than civil wars.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@AulusClaudiusNero it impossible the military all ways would have been the real power behind the throne

@toledomarcos70

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203rrrr What state hasn't problems with shadow masters Rome's problem was it never really separated the military from civilian law enforcement question what was the actual function of the Praetorian Guard I suspect it was a militarized police force from its origin

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@toledomarcos70civilian law inforcement did not exist in the Roman empire

@toledomarcos70

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203rrrr This brings up the question of which society was the first to deploy civilian law enforcement and why this is not discussed in the history books.

Without the pressure of National rivalries pushing technological development, I doubt the world would be as advanced. Empires tend to be very conservative, as in being hostile or slow to changing the system. New ideas usually don't do well in stable Empires.

@AulusClaudiusNero

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps, but if war and conflict amongst eternally-squabbling smaller nations is the price of faster technological development I'd take the stable Empire any day.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@AulusClaudiusNero you are the perfect supporter of a dictatorship western civilization is far superior to Greco Roman civilization I prefer superior civilization over a stagnated one

Would you also say that Aleric took advantage of the battle of the Fridgidus to come into more power with the Goths? No battle might mean no Aleric rising up in the East and told to head West?

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

We don't know maybe Alaric would have been stronger because many of the casualties during the Battle of the fridigus River were Alaric's soldiers

Is there any fanfiction on internet about alternate events concerning the Roman empire/Republic?

If not this battle, then it would have been some other battle, because one way or another they (you know who) would have destroyed the Roman empire, especially as a revenge for the Punic Wars and what Hadrian did to them.

@cjclark1208

Жыл бұрын

They, being the ones calling Kayne West crazy? 👀

@evannlorman7926

Жыл бұрын

What, the children? Cuz Hadrian fucked children.

You can't blame theodosius for appointing his children as emperors. Literally anyone would do that. Nobody blames Valentinian for Gratian. If he didn't appointed his sons to the throne they would either be assassinated or would conspire against the future emperor and become emperors themselves

Do you think neoplatonism Or mithriaism would have replaced christianity in Western empire under eugenius rule? Since greco-roman religion was already in decline & corrupt and these two cults were equally popular among elites and military along with christianity, was there a chance that some neoplatonic Or mithriac rule took control later on? Since bulk of Christian population existed in eastern empire, I think this could have been possible.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

I don't think that they were popular with the military Also Christianity is real religion unlike Neoplatonism. Christianity has real theological believes which makes Christians ready to follow Christianity like an Ideology and not just like a believe which Is personal. Because of that you can use Christianity for geopolitical purposes . Unlike Neoplatonism. simply put it is impossible to start a crusade with Neoplatonism

@marvelloustraveller3559

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203 christianity evolve into religion with time. Christians for long time had contraindications among themselves. Gnosticism , chaldeans, arianism etc are best example. Mithriaism had its own temples, rituals, philosophy, beliefs etc, was monotheist like christians and was popular among military, especially officers and elites. Neoplatonism although was philosophy , could turn into full fledged religion by absorbing pagan faiths just like advaita did in india. Julian the apostate was trying to do same thing.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@marvelloustraveller3559 neither Neoplatonism or Mithraism had any theological believes they had just retuals and philosophical believes Christianity had theological believes since the beginning the different Christian sects prove my point because they hated each other because of their Theological differences. Simply put you can not start a holly war in the name of Neoplatonism or Mithraism

And if you were an apple you wouldn't be an orange.

@mysterious8152

Жыл бұрын

What statement is that

Interesting to consider.

The battle at Frigidus river had to happen. Theodosius was a power-hungry man. First, he could not allow an emperor in the West he did not control. Second, Arbogast had been Theodosius' most capable military commander and turned against his master. Third, Theodosius ruled the empire of God. "In hoc signo vinces semper" wasn't just a propaganda narrative. The Romans officially believed that the empire was invincible if God was on their side. However, the outcome of the battle could have been different and the West never would have been controlled by the East.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

First every Roman emperor was power hungry second the battle of the fridigus River was not a religious battle

I was often wandering if the cult of Sol Invictus could consolidate into a monotheistic faith that could compete with or replace christianity in western Europe, and how different this religion would actually be, but probably that question would have it's answer if Aurelian lived longer and Sponsian was his successor.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

This a fantasy the cult of sol invictus was politicly useless do you believe that it would be ever possible to start a holly war in the name of sol invictus

In case of the lack of Frigidus and a Christian Middle Age, the possibility that Nietzsche's mentor, the Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt envisaged would have been quite possible. Burckhardt wrote that a prolonged Roman (Greek elements were decorations, even the Stoicism of the Romans were quite different, despite of Marcus's oeuvre) polytheism could not avoid destruction. The empire and its society would have remained on the path of decline and atomization, and as a result it could not regenerate and organize itself into an cohesive whole. The consequence of this, according to Burckhardt is neither a pagan nor a Christian Europe but the total conquest of Islam which could reach the whole of Italy and the La Manche Channel. Poitiers would have never happened and the Middle Ages would be Islamic in this case. I think that Christianity was the best possible option.

A very interesting question. As others have commented, it certainly wasn't their largest loss numerically, but it was the final battle for the soul of the Western Empire and a major loss to the size of its army at an inopportune time and at 0 cost to the external enemies that would soon come streaming across the border. Sadly, I fear that if that battle hadn't decided things for Theodosius the religious conflict would simply have continued. Christianity wasn't going anywhere by then and, unlike the other "mystery cults", demanded exclusivity and viewed all other gods as evil demons. I often wonder how things might have turned out differently had the Church accepted the offer to include Jesus in the pantheon rather than insist that he's the one and only God. Of course that would have led to a very different Christianity than the one we know today, but that's part of what makes it interesting to contemplate.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

O my favourite cuck 😄 I am sorry to break it to you there wasn't any religious conflict between pagans and Christians the pagans were simply to politicly week .The real religious conflict was between different Christian sects. Also would you hoping is impossible after all the hole council of nicea started because The Christians desperately try to convince them selves that they believe one god not in three separate gods .also it is pretty debatable if Christianity was a mystery religion. Historians like Bart Ehrman would not agree with you

Funny enough,it was Stilicho,who raised Theodosius children into being as they were,along with philosopher Libanius,who was a pagan,not Theodosius.

Tbh I don't see Paganism hanging on even with a more tolerant emperor. If Julian couldn't revive the old cults, then I am confident they were doomed.

Saint Theodosius pray for us.☦️

So many happened from one battle

Interesting

I have thoroughly enjoyed watching your videos about Rome and MOSTLY agree with your points and most specifically your point about the BBS series on Rome being truly great and accurate. I am commenting because I feel you are missing perhaps the most important element in Rome's collapse. Class warfare that stretched in the BBC series accurately as a thread from the Grachii, the 'populares' vs 'optimes' theme would be a crucial thread from the Grachii, through Marius, Caeser and the later emperor Generals until Rome became a patchwork of medieval Germanic states. Pompey's final defeat vs Caeser and the collapse of the middle class legionaries replaced by cheaper 'feoderati' and an aristocracy that unlike in the East were allowed to retreat from their duties as an elite to just managing their oversized estates all were class based structural weaknesses. The later mingling with the victorious 'barbarians' created the 'blue blood' nobility as argued for by 'City of God's massively influential author Augustine, who stated this mingling would combine the cultured but degenerate 'blood' of the Romans to the virile 'fresh blood' of the conquering barbarians to make a superior master race of Christian nobility. When I grew up there was an over emphasis on purely Marxian analysis but now it is ignored when ALL the issues, those raised by yourself and me here ALL combined to ensure Rom'es fall. The Byzantines ENSURED aristocrats served and via the Themata system ensured, as later done by Swedish king Gustav II Adolf and then Prussia, that an economic basis for troop support was woven into the very social fabric of those nations. This is what is missing from your otherwise excellent and detailed analtysis IMHO! I just subscribed and happily so. I am just adding to rather than refutating your insights! Great work. History is BOTH structural AND dependant on individuals input!

What if... On one hand I like Alternate History stories and I can imagine this battle not happening could change the Europe for better. However in the end it's like predicting Hurricanes before they even form and how the next winter is going to look like. Butterfly effect and the overall complexity mean that even with the best supercomputer, even with an army of history LARP enthusiasts we can never know for sure. Even if Old Romans knew the steam engine is the key to future industrial revolutions, they would still need centuries of further development at best. After all windmills and watermills could do the same primitive steam engines could and the later technological revolution was just a result of long evolution.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

The Roman empire was far more stagnated and primitive. than western civilization

WE NEED A TIME MACHINE

Truly little in history is inevitable, as your video shows. I'm not sure that extending the lifetime of the Western Empire into the sixth century would have achieved the fusion of pagan and Christian culture that you mentioned, but extending the life of the old Empire would have been a good thing for the Empire's citizens.

If the East and Western Empires were split such that Egypt was part of the west, would the extra tax and grain export revenuse been enough to save it?

@maiorianus, I'm genuinly curious, and please explain if you can. Battles like those at Adrianople, Abrittus, Mursa Mayor, the Milvian Bridge etc. Were all followed by harrowing consequences. It could be argued that any of those problems led to the demise of Rome. How do you differ in this opinion? And secondly I was wondering, I thought that internal problems like, barbarian racism, religious strife, border disintegration and corruption were already present problems and not exlusive to Theodosius and the Battle of the Frigidu. Honorius and Arcadius would have been set on the throne wether the battle occured or not, probably more likely even if the battle didn't happen because Theodosius would have displaced Eugenius without a battle ensuing. And lastly, had this battle not happened, the empire wouldn't have lasted much longer anyways, in my opinion ofc. Do you think there is any moment later than this point in time of the Western Empire, that was more detrimental to the survival of the empire?

What if Julian the so-called Apostate had lived and had had male heirs? That would be a What If video that I would like to see.

Yeay!

Regardless of the battle's results, the Roman Empire at this stage was already dead with cultures of the old Roman past was long ago. Once Diocletian took power, the east half of the empire was becoming more Greek and less Roman while the west was becoming Germanic in nature. Compare the world of the Roman Empire under Augutus to the ones under Diocletian; it's a totally different world. By the time of this battle the Roman Empire was already gathering dust. I doubt this battle would change the world because the empire will still collapse.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

The eastern half was always more Greek than Roman

I have 3 Questions for the community: 1. Are you sure, that limitanei troops fought at this battle? I thought that just comitatenses and palatina troops were involved at frigidus. 2. Do you think the Military dictatorship in the western roman empire could have been avoided or stopped? 3. What would happened if Theodosius forces lose this battle at frigidus? I think the Imperium Romanum was to sick to survive (economic decline, corruption and malpractice, decadence and greed, Christian intolerance, to much civil wars, military dictatorship in the west, and so on). But, what is your opinion (community)?

If only. Very depressing

I have been a huge fan of Roman History for almost as long as I can remember. I was genuinely upset the first time I found out that the crusaders had sacked Constantinople. Here’s the thing though. When the Western Empire was falling, peasant revolts were common place, people would rather maim themselves than fight to save the empire, rebellions, betrayals, civil wars, we’re all common place. So much so that certain people would rather join the invaders than defend the empire. I realize that the fall really did set back Europe for a long time, but….was the Western Empire really worth saving? You’re a farmer because your parents were, unfair taxes, all the rest….

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

It did not set Europe back in fact Europe was a better place after the collapse of the Roman empire

@andreweaston1779

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203 Thats not true. For example, it took 1000 years for pottery in europe to be made at the same rate as when the empire existed. And, since pottery was used for trade, that also means there wasnt as much trade. theres other examples as well.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@andreweaston1779 what you are saying total nonsense by the twelve century the production of everything including pottery in Europe was either grater or on the same level as the Roman empire. also medieval agriculture was far more advanced than Roman agriculture. And as you know that best indicator for economic growth before the industrial revolution was agriculture

By that point Rome was done for The loss in Hadrionuple was the point of no return Another thing is that you are kinda biased towards middle ages western Europe The middle ages and the death of Rome were necessary for the Europe in order to develop and progress

I think the only way to prohibit this battle were: Theodosius should have died a natural death and arcadius accpeted Eugenius as co - emporer in the west. Maybe they would have formed a eugenian-theodosian dynasty (via marriage)?

The Western Roman Empire was never sustainable. It was like Africa during the 19th and early 20th century: the Europeans could build Western cities in the wilderness, but the locals weren't rich enough to sustain those cities. Excepting areas where mines could extract mineral wealth, the Western Empire depended on subsidies from Rome (which in turn got its wealth from the Eastern Empire, which was the nexus of trade routes from China, India, the Middle East, the Baltic, the Danube, etc.). Rome built and maintained the cities of the West, not the locals.

The empire should of fell during the 250s how it survive only divine help… the empire woulda fell eventually how it stayed around for thousand years amazing

I swear, every last claim that the world would be way more advanced if the Roman Empire kept going (while they ignore the east) or if Christianity never took over just.... completely disregards the fact that China existed through all of that and was where most economic activity was focused, and where most of the foundational technologies were coming out of.

so pitty this battle happened nut i think the western empire would create any other disastrous battle like Frigidus maybe 50 or 100 years later...

Like another mentioned, too predictable. I had already guessed he was gonna mention Frigidus River based off the fanatical hate this guy has for the Christianization of Rome lol The entire empire surviving Germanic, Sassanid, And Arabic invasions just because several border legions wouldn't have been wiped out? lol please, I get these "what if" scenarios are fun to go crazy given the whole butterfly effect (chaos theory) thing...but still. Might as well say all Europe would be French had the Prussians not shown up. On a side note are the majority of people here Italian or from a former Roman region? Latino from America, I have no stake in this. I always liked history in general. But I definitely feel the racial tensions in a lot of these history channels.

@jigslast6843

Жыл бұрын

How are Christians this sensitive about everything? He is not criticizing Christianity he is criticizing how certain christians acted

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@jigslast6843 he is making anti Christian and does not provide any historical context on why this Christians acted

@marvelloustraveller3559

Жыл бұрын

The fact that Christians still today are very intolerant about any criticism tells us how much bigger jerks they must have been during late Roman era.

@UncannyRicardo

Жыл бұрын

@@marvelloustraveller3559 lol, yea like if the Romans themselves were so accepting of outside criticism. Just watch how these Romanophiles engage in talks with the other fanatics of Arabic heritage or something. Its always a flame war

@septimiusseverus343

Жыл бұрын

@@UncannyRicardo We have regular Holy Wars and Ethnic conflicts on this channel, like treading across a minefield.

Interesting alternative history. If the Byzantine Empire is supported by the west, perhaps it survives the Ottoman attack and Constantinople doesn't fall to them. Thus no renaissance. The impacts are extensive.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

The renaissance was not important. The rise of the West happened because of the discovery of the new world and the Reformation

@Jsmith2024

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203 😂🤪

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@Jsmith2024 very cringe comment

Medieval Europe and the Middle East would have probably looked more like Medieval China.

👍🏻🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Let me guess, Frigidus River? Still haven't watched the video

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

The battle of Battle of Mursa Major was far bloodier

The worst thing to happen to the Roman Empire was the incorporation of Christianity Keeping both would have been ideal.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

Not true

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

Christianity is far better than Edward gibbon

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

Modern historians do not agree with you

ASSASSIN CREED TIME MACHINE

I think the Germanic tribes would have eventually made it into Gaul. But only because the Romans let them. They might be stationed on the Rhine frontier, making the Huns less threatening on the border. They would still be a nightmare, though. The diverse pagan-christian culture of the West eventually causes a conflict with the orthodox christian east in an alternate battle. Likely, the stronger east triumphs. The Sassanids become strong in the 6th century, and the bubonic plague only severely weakens Rome. Especially in the West, allowing the Germanic tribes to take more land in Hispania and Gallia. The Sassanids are put in prime position to start a devastating war with Rome. Rome wins, but is further weakened. Then the surging Arabs invade. Continued hostilities with the West limit the defense. The Levant is slowly lost by the 660s, and eventually Egypt, too. Arab raids become a nightmare. Rome slowly begins to fall. I see by the 700s an East with large sections of the Balkans and Anatolia, and a West with Italy, Africa and Dalmatia.

Europe wouldve been 1 giant country like India or China is today.

There would be no Mohammad, no Spanish, French, Portuguese etc. No hengis and horsa, so no English. No USA. No Australia as we know it. No vikings? Maybe. No Holy Roman empire, but some kind of German confederation would probably develop. Maybe instead of the languages we have now, a different modern form of a modern Latin language. Possibly a different kind of discovery of the Americas. Who knows? No world wars, but different devastating wars would have inevitably happened. Maybe no Marxism, but possibly another kind of similar social movement. There would be some kind of industrial revolution. The Mongols and Turks would still inevitably come rading europe. There may even be another religious movement.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

In other words the world would have been shit

@stjohnsilver9538

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203 we would never have known.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@stjohnsilver9538 even still in my opinion the world would have been far worse please if western civilization did not exist

I knew it, i knew this battle was worst than the battle with the goths. But still... know what i mean jelly bean

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

It wasn't first many of the soldiers killed during the battle of fridigus River were Goths

This civil war was VERY damaging for Rome. Right when the empire needed a unified front against the invasive Germanic and Hunnic interlopers, it devolved into Christian sectarian conflict.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

There wasn't any religious conflict between pagans and Christians

@doublem1975x

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203 Sectarian conflict= Christians vs other Christians

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@doublem1975x ok you are right the conflicts between different Christian sects was important. but it mostly effected the eastern empire

Why west roman empire dont left all their provinces( Gallia, Spain,north Africa,others) and just move their legions to defend Italy and Sicily, Sardinia , Corsica? In total war atilla i made this and win😅.

sadly enough it has happen in this time-direction but i prefer personally this presented alternate time-line.we might be very HIGHLY developed AND PROSPEROUS world that has more culturally pacified certainly the entire roman-world and thus europe with HIS OWN OLD polytheistic beliefs and more connected with north-africA THAN EVER AS ONE UNITED WORLD OF PEOPLE,AND ADVANCE FAR MORE THAN NOW THE CASE IS AND STAYING IN THE OLD-WORLD WITHOUT COLONISATION TO THE NEW WORLD AND SLAVE-TRADE BASED ON RACE FROM WESTERN-AFRICA TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW-WORLD BECAUSE POWER MIGHT AND RICHNESS MAKE THE WEST NOT HAVING ANY NEED TO DISCOVER AND CONQUERING THE WORLD AND TRANSPORTING SLAVES TO THE NEW-WORLD,MORE PEACEFULL AND TOLERANT IN RELIGION AND EVENTUALLY CONNECTED WITH EASTERN-EURASIA WITH TRADING OF GOODS AND MORE BECOME HUMANE OVER THE CENTURIES TO ABANDON SLAVERY AND BEGINNING WITH HIGH-TECH EARLIER AND SELFSUFFICIENT CLEAN-ENERGY WITH MORE AND QUICKER GREAT ADVANCES IN TECH AND SCIENCE WITHOUT ANY VDELAYING CHRISTIANITY MIDDELE-AGES ETC, NOT HAS EVER HAPPEN THIS HAVE MIGHT BE HAPPENED IN THE ALTERNATE-TIMELINE.I THINK SOMEHOW THIS TIME-LINE IS ONE OF THE WORST OR ATLEAST LESS BETTER THAN THE OTHER OUTCOME[S] POSSIBLE IN MULTIVERSE OF PARALEL UNIVERSES.

That consideration is just stupid : a continuation of old-style paganism would have resulted into more barbarity. Actually the worst barbarians shared the same religion with the old Romans, Beowulf style. Old Roman religion was not something very humanistic except in the views of a few atypical philosophers who made it very clear that they did not believe but symbolically in the popular creeds. The main thing about paganism was fatalism, and the sacredness of money and political power as manifestation of divine forces. Most Roman temples were treasuries, banks, not works of art. Their architecture would have most probably evolved into monuments like those of Venice, which was a pagan city actually under a very thin veneer of Catholicism.

@overlord5068

Жыл бұрын

Venice is not pagan at all It's Catholic

out of all the things that never happened this is a very minor one.

If the battle of Adrianople never happened instead, and the romans never mistreated the Goths in abusive manners in corruption through exploitations, and managed to integrate them into the Northern parts of the empire in the Balkans with several other tribes to help defend the frontier with those extra warriors as farmer soldiers for the empire... then this battle may not have happened at all, because the Western empire would see a much stronger Eastern empire that they could not beat and would not dare to try to usurp the throne for themselves. It might even force the fanatical Christians in Alexandria & throughout the empire to think twice too before abusing their power in causing havoc across the empire, because they too would see that the emperor has more allied troops to put them down if they tried anything against the pagans in Alexandria, then the library would still be around a bit longer. Christianity has its issues, especially when it has corruption in influence, politics, power and money & more like with all other religions... but without all that like with the beginning Christians under Jesus, the world would be far better off for it co existing with the pagans for many more centuries to come after. The Sack of Rome would not have happened for many more centuries + The Huns would have greater resistance to their invasions in the Balkans, the Persians would see that the empire had more troops and would think twice before invading the Eastern half again... and the Western empire would only fall eventfully due to infighting mostly instead of total invasion from all over by others. With the extra manpower from the goths & others with no infighting & better treatment instead, the Balkans would not have been completely depopulated by Attila the Hun in his genocides... because the combined allied forces there would be able to protect it longer if defended right by the romans and others united. However, I believe that even if these two battles did not happen like above with Adrianople, the two empires would still fall eventfully... it just would've taken a little while longer, with all the infighting that would still occur from within. The ship for the empire as a whole was still sinking, the breakup just delayed the inevitable... just like Titanic, the only way for all this to not happen = is for the Huns to not have existed at all... and even then, the empire/s would still eventfully fall due to other factors we all know already, just way later. It's all really fascinating to think about. 😎😉

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

group of pagan philosophers tortured group of Christians inside The serapeum The emperor Theodosius was merciful he just ordered the destruction of the serapeum and spread the pagans second I am sorry leftist cuck western civilization which is both Germanic and Christian is far superior to the degenerate Greco Raman civilization .I am proud that my Christian ancestors destroyed the degenerate pagan religion also the emperor was a Christian and the Goths were Christians .Also there wasn't any religious conflict between pagans and Christians. Paganism is descanting and degenerate religion. Christianity was far superior to The degenerate religion

@larsius5120

Жыл бұрын

Great theory! I also think the roman empire was to sick to survive not longer than 100-200 Years. Than we maybe have learned: The End of the Roman empire in the year 676 A.D. (not 476 A.D.) or something like that...

@vargaalketa

Жыл бұрын

Yes but that would make sense and wouldnt be complaining about christians so he cant make that

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@larsius5120 I don't think so if the empire did not had that many enemies it could have survived longer

I like very much the topics about the Roman Empire. But here it fails because you extrapolate too much about an alternate issue. Empires accumulate powers and interests. It happens that promises of rewards can't be fully accomplished. Disappointments and mistrust occur. Divides appear. crisis could have occurred elsewhere in another time Think about the Butterfly Effect

First

Hmmm; crypto-paginism huh?

This channel’s just getting silly now.

@luanasari5161

Жыл бұрын

why

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@luanasari5161 because it is anti Christian propaganda

@Johnsmith99663

Жыл бұрын

@@luanasari5161 The purpose of history is to understand why the present world is the way it is and predict what shape the future will most likely take, making alternative history something which robs us of knowledge. There're also so many contingencies at play in history that changing events is basically worthless, since how much would be changed and if the speculator's desired outcome would even come to pass is always questionable. He also seems to be moving his channel in the direction of insinuating that Christianity was a driving factor in the empire's decline, even though religious changes were primarily a response to the factors which were actually driving the empire's decline. A lot of heat is generated around the fact that Christianity became increasingly intolerant as the fourth and fifth centuries proceeded, as Christians used the state to marginalize and suppress Pagans and rival Christian groups. However, not enough light is shed on the question of why the Pagan state itself became increasingly intolerant of religious minorities in the second and third centuries, of which the Christians were only one target of their persecutions - a growing intolerance of religious minorities which led the Pagan state to adopt policies which were traditionally "anti-Pagan."

Western Roman Copium

Dear Maiorian, Whilst it is fun to immagine learning in school, the three Roman languages of Gallic, Greek and Latin. I doubt this would happen. Plainly: Absolute Monarchies are damned to fall, for absolute power is a mighty seducer. Rome might have survived, had it returned to Constitutional Republicanism. Still, it would have to account for the Foederati living in the Empire. Crack down on the crooked clientella systhem and the mysteries. Compromise between Christian,Pagan and Shamanistic religions. Invent a systhem for individual and comunal rights. Educate the masses in matters which are Roman. And somehow enforce this systhem. (this is a pain, just ask Brutus) But also change the army's power and monetary structure; This means civil war: Generals don't want power chalenge. They don't want government to interfear with millitary matters. And you should think twice before lowering a soldier's pay. It could be done, however: Rome would not be an Empire anymore. sincerely

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

First there wasn't any religious conflict between pagans and Christians second the republic can not rule the entire Mediterranean.The only way the hole Mediterranean could be ruled is by an absolute monarchy. Also absolute monarchies are not damned to fall. China was an absolute monarchy for thousands of years

@ariebrons7976

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203 Thanks for the effort: There where many Christan riots within the empire, also vandalism of Temples. (the film Agora is a good example of this) Many witch stereotypes we have today are derived from traditional Pagan practices. Also Paganism was made illegal under Theodosius (I beleive). This is violence. Second: China was ruled by emperors for thousands of years. By how many dynasties? I do not know any chinese history, but I know there where the Qin,Ming and Han dynasties. Plus there was a period in which China was split into three or four waring states. I know the Han where Mongols. The Mongols play a major part in Byzantine and Slavonic history.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@ariebrons7976 first the riots were not at all important for the empire second the movie agora is at best propaganda also we have not inherited anything important from the pagan also the Roman Republic had many civil wars so what is your point also the Chinese monarchy still lasted longer than the Roman Republic. and if you don't like China as an example i can give you another examples like the French Kingdom or ancient Egypt

@ariebrons7976

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203 If Pagans wheren't discriminated against; how come Italy is mostly a Christian nation?

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

Because the pagans lost their state subsidies the pagan religion is public in nature it can not exist with out the state

this is just getting annoying by now.Go complain about Ricimer

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

Ricimer was just a military commander

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@vargaalketa I know but it would Also be annoying when he starts to complain again about Ricimer

@septimiusseverus343

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrr2203 Or praising Julian, the "Roman Akhenaten."

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@septimiusseverus343 True Julian is almost incompetent as Akhenaten

@AulusClaudiusNero

Жыл бұрын

If you don't like his content, just don't watch it.

You are pagan apologist not an objective Historian first other larger battles happened like the Battle of Mursa Major Which was the bloodiest battle during the forth century over 50000 soldiers were killed. Second eugenius was an useper there is no way That Theodosius would have allowed an usurper Also religious conflicts between pagans and Christians did not happen because the pagans were irrelevant minority . Also even if eugenius stayed as emperor paganism was still dying even before Gratian paganism was declaining

@mysterious8152

Жыл бұрын

He uses fake accent a scammer wannabe historian

@TotilaTheGoth

Жыл бұрын

I agree with what you say. I noticed how he moaned about how Christianity clashed with paganism before in such a crybaby reddit manner. Plus, he also started with clickbaity titles like this one, which is rather downgrade from earlier quality of videos.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@TotilaTheGothyou are right his knowledge of Roman history is very shallow. He probably got his history knowledge from Reddit

@cjclark1208

Жыл бұрын

You guys moan just as hard about his bias against Christendom and his factual arguments then he does about the clash of Christians against the “Pagans” as you call them (comical bias) So are you any different then him or are you just extra butt hurt in his comments on his videos? Fools.

@rrrr2203

Жыл бұрын

@@cjclark1208 first he doesn't have any factual arguments second he is far more but Hurt than me he spent far more time creating an anti Christian propaganda in a video format then me writing a comment . also if he is incorrect I am going to correct him. historians Also use the term pagan.. Also one of his incorrect believes is the clash between pagans and Christians. The pagans were so politicly weak that there wasn't any real clash between Christianity and Paganism. The only religious clash inside the Roman empire was between the different Christian sects

Thanks!

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

Жыл бұрын

Hello Michael, thanks a lot for your generous donation, Amicus. I really appreciate your generous support :)

@autodidact537

Жыл бұрын

@@Maiorianus_Sebastian I don't think that if this battle had never been fought it would've made much of a difference in the long run. Internecine struggles and civil wars were endemic in the behavior of the Romans. The end would've been the same.