🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus

By the time of Hadrian only 10 percent of the legions consisted of Roman Italian’s, most of the legions were filled with provincials, the officer corps were staffed by Roman Italian’s

@bideni408

Жыл бұрын

"diversity" its only the final stahe of disintegrating civilization.

@formacionG13

Жыл бұрын

Whats up flavius, big fan. Am sorry you got kill that way. Greetings from mx 🇲🇽

@marceloschmidt116

Жыл бұрын

Italians or not they were romans as at the end they were not romans

@geordiejones5618

Жыл бұрын

Which is pretty consistent throughout Roman history as they expanded into Italy and outward. Even by Punic Wars more of the legions were allies than Roman citizens. After the Social War it was mostly poor Italians as soliers and rich Romans as officers. But they burned through the poor Italians with 60 years of civil war and thats part of why Augustus kept the legions on the frontiers, where they started having families in those areas and new troops were raised from the provincial colonies. Surely some poor Italians joined the legions to try and up their stock but by the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty there was no need because the recruiting infastructure of the empire was ubiquitous and strong.

@richardscanlan3167

Жыл бұрын

funnily enough,your username is one of Rome's great generals - and he was a Vandal:))

Another reason is that the Roman army in the late empire became a defensive army that did not get any spoils , unlike the Roman army in the high empire, which was an offensive army that got many spoils a large part of which goes to the soldiers, so there is no longer a material reason for entering the Roman army

@nodinitiative

Жыл бұрын

Yup, the Roman empire should have kept on expanding. More booty for the army. Their pay is mainly from the people they conquer and looted.

@akramkarim3780

Жыл бұрын

@@nodinitiative They were no longer able to expand further because the empire had become enormous in size and its defense consumed all the capabilities of the army and there was no longer the ability to carry out military campaigns like previous centuries, add to this the struggles within the Roman army between the generals for the rule of the empire because the Roman army itself had become the actual power where the competition for power is not through elections as it was in the Roman Senate but rather through battles

@teddyjackson1902

Жыл бұрын

Actually there was a very material reason to join the army. The bigger problem was the population stopped replacing itself under an excessive tax burden and an endless string of civil wars.

@desdicadoric

Жыл бұрын

Plus the reform’s by Caracalla that removed the benefit legionaries would get of being made a Roman citizen after completing service

@Gustavo-bm3ew

6 ай бұрын

A comienzos del s III dc. el emperador CARACALLA. extendió la ciudadanía a todos los hombres libres del imperio. Antes muchos se peleaban por ser CIUDADANO ROMANO, (para ser ciudadano romano debían reunir ciertas condiciones, la raza u origen no inportaba) y despues de eso, ser romano perdió sentido. Antes solo los ciudadanos formaban las legiones, estaban mejor entrenados y eran la élite, los no ciudadanos, que eran menos romanizados, eran las tropas auxiliares. Después de Caracalla, la división entre auxiliares y legionarios profecionales desapareció, se mezclaron y la calidad del EJERCITO PROFECIONAL que ya estaba en crisis bajó aún mas.

7:02 The desperate recruitment of slaves and gladiators into the army did not occur only during the decline of the Empire. It was used for the first time during the Second Punic War, specifically when Hannibal was already at the gates of Rome, and during the war against the Germans in the midst of the Antonine plague (in the latter, Christians were even recruited and assigned to special detachments).

@samuelkohi4415

Жыл бұрын

And remember, Augustus had a personal guard made entirely of German recruits.

@flaviusstilicho397

Жыл бұрын

Also during the marcomannic wars Marcus Aurelius recruited slaves into the legions because of the Antonine plague/barbarian incursions depleted the local populations and legions

@alessandrogini5283

Жыл бұрын

@the Last Caesar , really Marcus aurelius used Christians in special detachments?what you know?

@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014

11 ай бұрын

Really? A kind of Christian Auxilia?

Video ends in 14:53 East-rome fell in 1453 Coincidence? I thinknot!

@Tubeman777

Жыл бұрын

Big-brain Easter Egg! 😆

Also, the economy of Italy and other rich Western Roman provinces had been hollowed out. There were enormous plantations owned by immensely wealthy land owners (who had questionable loyalties) and slaves. I am not sure if the term 'middle class' applies to the ancient world, but the number of 'free' men available for service had also been reduced. The government was broke, the economy moribund, and the numbers of free Romans dramatically reduced. It is amazing they did as well as they did.

Being in the Roman army in the 400s ad was also more dangerous than 100 AD. Coupled with inflation, no wonder Roman where not eager to join the Army. A decline in rural population might also be a reason. There is the question of culture as well, since in the late empire masculinity was not only associated with soldiery but also education and culture, since at the time, around 400,000 men where in the priesthood.

@AntonioPeralesdelHierro

3 ай бұрын

So what effect did this new "masculinity" bring with it?

I completely agree. It’s the 3/4 generation rule (originally proposed by Ivan Khaldun). Without reforms or some invigorating event; within a couple generations, the common population just can’t be incentivized to risk themselves for the society as a whole, wealth disparity becomes intense (with inflation invariably following just increasing that, and so you end up with a small caste of the society or foreign mercenaries who eventually just decide to “reform” society.

There's another dynamic I think we need to consider for this topic. While it started with Augustus, it's in the 2nd and 3rd centuries we really start to see a change in the prestige/preference from the Exercitus Romanus to the Vigiles Urbani and Cohortes Urbanae. Before Augustus, the primary law enforcement was the military when available or not actively at war. After their creation we start to see a major shift in preference for their usage instead of military on the local levels. This had to have had a psychological and social effect. And yes, I know technically the cohortes urbanae were part of the standard military by classification, but I would challenge they were and were not. They were on paper but not in reality as they were not under the normal chains of command. They were a specialized unit that didn't do normal military duties like the rest of them, they were almost solely a police force. And for good reason. It was a simple game of numbers. At its height there were about 870 cities...with 28 legions at about 5500 strong their military system was not designed to equally support or enforce law while still fulfilling their active duty responsibilities. Why would a person want to join the military and get less pay and less glory than a cohort? And from about 200-500 we see a major increase in their numbers while we see a major decrease in the military.

Losing entire regions, like Spain to the Visigoths, and North Africa to the Vandals. Also, the Empire splitting into two, many many times, will also affect recruitment numbers.

I'd like to point out another aspect that led to the downfall of the West was the constant sabatoge of great military generals, by their rivals and the senate. For example, Stlilicho and Majorian being murdered by their rivals so they wouldn't get "too powerful". I think this also led to a lack of great leaders, rather than Rome having poor soldiers.

This is why I subscribed to this channel. Disassembling old thropes and bringing us the truth the truth is always more complex than a few words can describe .salve!

I have a suggestion. Do a video about the Lead poisoning of Romans and the effects of Lead poisoning contributing to the downfall of the Roman Empire. The sources of Lead include Sugar of Lead in wine, Lead pots, Lead on roofs and tiles, Lead pipes (Plumbum, which is why the abbreviation for Lead is Pb) and Lead paint. You'd be surprised how much this contributed to violence (I've spent 9 years researching this). I'd love to see your take on it. :)

@pancakes1271

Жыл бұрын

One thing that is striking about Imperial Rome is the apparent severe infertility issues of Emperors. There are only three cases of direct father-son inheritance in the entire principate period (Vespasian to Titus, Marcus Aurelius to Commodus, and Septimius Severus to Caracalla and Geta). I do wonder if lead poisoning was a contribution to this apparently high rate of childlessness amongst Emperors.

@andrelegeant88

Жыл бұрын

@@pancakes1271 Some of that is because they had fertility backwards. They thought women were most fertile right before menstruation. Given that husband/wife dynamics were very different, it isn't a given that husbands and wives (especially at the elite level) were having sex during the woman's ovulation window. The other relevant factor is high childhood mortality. Often we only read about children that survived the first few years of life.

@basiliiboulgaroktonos3872

Жыл бұрын

I never knew this! Did they ever found out that lead was lethal?

@kaloarepo288

Жыл бұрын

As far as lead pipes are concerned I thought that theory had been blown as deposits in the water soon coat the insides making the lead harmless.Don't know about lead in wine but all the other things continued into medieval times with lead piping and other fixtures on medieval roofs.I think malaria from Africa and worse strains of it must have had a debilitating effect -recent excavations in villa near Rome reveal animals sacrificed with child burials and this was in Christian period but superstitious fears made people revert to pagan practices because of malaria.

@andrelegeant88

Жыл бұрын

@@kaloarepo288 It depends on the water source. If the water is not acidic, the lead pipes are fine as the lead won't get into the water. But corrosive water will cause lead poisoning. This is what happened in Flint, Michigan: they changed the water source and it corroded lead pipes.

imo the fall of rome was inevitable, I view it more as a result of the increasing accumulation of wealth, land and political capital in the hands of the elite. Of course this was always an issue for rome, but they were able to offset this by offering land in exchange for military service. When rome stopped expanding it was only a matter of time before the increasing wealth disparity led to the destruction of their empire. Wealthy elites were not taxed at near the rate of the average citizen and had all the political and hard power needed to keep it that way, sometimes resulting in civil wars. And because the landed class of citizens shrunk over time without the ability to grant newly conquered land to soldiers, the pool of possible recruits shrunk. Its a tale as old as civilization and one well illustrated with the gradual decline of sparta for much the same reasons.

Roman soldier 1#: "I think we should make Nepos Emperor again" Roman soldier 2#: "I am sure that boy Romulus and his father can serve us well, to be honest" Roman soldier 3#: "Guys...Odoacer has killed Nepos and dethroned Romulus. Maybe you should..." Roman soldier 1# and 2#: "SHUT UP. CAN'T YOU SEE WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE THE EMPIRE?!"

Would love to see a video on how the Western Roman Empire, or what remained of Roman culture morphed into the traditional Medieval Age that we are familiar with.

Lower pay is a good reason to explain a citizen's lack of enthusiasm for enlisting.

@soldiermeyer2790

Жыл бұрын

Lower pay and constant civil wars. Also the church and the public administration offered much more than the army at that time.

When an envoy of the senate approached Alaric and threatened Rome would meet him on the battlefield, Alaric replied "the thickest hey is easiest to cut". He knew there was nothing to fear from 1 million Roman civilians. Which should not come as a surprise given that the Roman population had been completely disarmed and even denied the right of self-defence against barbarian attacks. Maybe the emperors feared their subjects more than the barbarians.

@AK-hi7mg

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like modern day Germany .

@twomp5613

Жыл бұрын

@@AK-hi7mgironic

@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014

11 ай бұрын

Wow I didn’t know that at all. It would be like s third world country threatening the usa after a humiliating defeat, knowing that the americans have so high standards of living that no one would risk their lives

Danke für diesen Kanal, hatte mich als sächsische Rückkreuzung 😁😁 (halber norddeutsche, halb engländer) jahrelang mit der germanischen Geschichte und Kultur beschäftigt, seit kurzem auch mit Rom, die beste Hochkultur die es wohl gab und dein Kanal ist eine wahre Bereicherung. Regards from Wessex

@Goaner89

Жыл бұрын

@@user_kjy 🤡🤡🤡

Check out the ring link. It's pretty cool that some of the rings they sell have legion logos.

@Maiorianus_Sebastian

Жыл бұрын

Yes, they make some pretty nice legion rings.

Maiorianus: VERY INTERESTING & INFORMATIVE video!

As always, excellent contribution!

Excellent work. Rot from within due to inept management and greed is still with us today.

Also plagues that zapped native recruitment power.

the thumbnail is between borderline cringe and ridicously awesome!

@michaelporzio7384

Жыл бұрын

Indeed! the Romans stopped going to the gym and drinking protein shakes in the late empire😀

Beginning during the 3rd century crisis, many Roman citizens feared for their lives from the tax collectors, and lived on estates owned by the rich equestrian/ Senate class for protection. By the 5th century, when Stilicho was trying to recruit Italian natives, the estate owners (the senators) said “you’re not taking our workers away, find your own recruits.” Therefore it wasn’t a lack of enthusiasm, it was the Roman elite who made recruitment a nightmare.

>video about the loss of Roman martial vigor >14:53 minutes long Cruel irony

I think there is something to the assertions of Gibbon. Specifically that the super rich abdicated civic responsibility and prohibited allowing tenants on their lands to enlist.

@sethmangini6671

Жыл бұрын

Hmm…the super rich avoiding paying taxes and forcing the state into massive debt to finance itself? Sounds like America since about 1980…..

@bobbyokeefe4285

Жыл бұрын

Of course,he's just trying to be a contrarian,to sound smart.

@tomtravis3077

Жыл бұрын

@Bobby O'Keefe which obviously you are not. Because there is no 'correct' answer. It is multifaceted. Gibbon was not entirely wrong. Have you even read Gibbon? All three volumes? I doubt it. Or else you would offer your interpretation. Not your smart ass response.

@KevinJohnson-cv2no

Жыл бұрын

Or, you know, the elephant in the room that everyone is trying to avoid: Christianity eroded Roman martial vigor by denouncing the values that led to such vigor. Christianity encouraged the pacification of the empire, and propagated meek beliefs such as "turning the other cheek" "being kind to thy neighbour" and of course the one that helps the weak sleep best at night "the meek shall inherit the earth". Christianity firmly rooted itself on the side of the helpless, mystical slave; encouraging it's followers not to go out, conquer and gain glory in the name of god (like Pagan gods such as Mars would encourage); but to weakly, humbly bend the knee to an invisible force and bide your time until the afterlife. Roman martial vigor was deliberately eroded by a slave populace that felt threatened by (and moreso, utterly incapable of) such behavior.

@kevincousino2276

Жыл бұрын

@@KevinJohnson-cv2no the vandals and goths that brought down the empire were also christian.

Excellent as usual!

Nice videos, breaking miths and getting a much closer truth to what happened in the late Roman period. Might I ask you about some book recomandations about this subject?

For someone alien to Roman history but deeply in love with it, this channel is a great source of knowledge.

Achaemenid Empire: Fell because it was completely conquered by Alexander Macedonian Empire: Fell because it was divided by Alexander's successors and its remnants conquered by Rome Roman Empire: Fell because its soldiers said "Meh. Who cares at this point?"

@nemos9856

Ай бұрын

Well not really didnt u heard that a huge amount died in civil wars + most of the roman citizen were so poor they had to sell their own children to slavery which is fucked bcs most of them died even before they were sold do to high child mortality

According to some of the books I read on the subject, and many awesome documentaries such as this, the late Roman empire degraded into a tyrannical s***hole by the 3rd century. Huge wealth inequality, terrible living standards, countless imperial decrees which basically turned Roman citizens into serfs... Not to mention INFANTICIDE (?!?!) which seemed to have been all the rage at the time... Basically turned the Western empire into a totalitarian cesspool which was not worth defending. Christianity also played it's role here, but not in the way that we might think. Young men were not becoming "more focused on the afterlife", but rather discovered a new career opportunities in becoming priests or monks. Spending your life in prayer (and relative comfort, compared to the average soldier's life) must've sounded a lot better then spending your life in the legion, risking your life and limb for a meager pay. Basically, by the time the crisis of the 3rd century rolled in, there were no benefits of becoming a Roman citizen anymore. No upsides at all. Nothing to motivate young men to join the legion like they did in the good old days. Did the Romans lose their martial spirit in the late empire? Short answer: yes. Long answer: yes, BUT, not in the way that we may think. They had a darn good reason not to fight. Their "bloodline" did not degrade. They did not become "decadent". They simply didn't want to fight and die for the empire that treated them like s***.

One could say that Early Rome's enemies came from their near neighbours & traditional long-standing rivals like Carthage: while the Empire actually fell to newer & more 'alien' peoples from much farther away. (Though often allowed to settle within the Empire.)

Very excellent. Thank You

great vid !

so this video has 14;53 minutes...1453

@victorromano6707

Жыл бұрын

Delete this ;(

@Tonyx.yt.

Жыл бұрын

coincidences? i dont think so

@emilioduarte7089

Жыл бұрын

@@Tonyx.yt. its a message

'Their standard of living was too high to be interested in defending the empire' is a funny was to say they were too decadent to fight the barbarian invaders. You say you want to put to rest the 'old trope' but you can't get away from the reality of it. You gave the reasons why they were decadent and weak, but the fact remains they were decadent and weak.

@prometheus9096

Жыл бұрын

@@therealdarklizzy I hope you take this not to serious because it leads to some dangerous ideas. *cough* social Darwinism *cough*

@Seth9809

Жыл бұрын

Actually no, because the middle class was utterly dead and Italia was full of slums and basically homeless people. They were not allowed to become strong, because they would start asking questions about why they are homeless and/or why they live in slums.

@voss0749

21 күн бұрын

@@therealdarklizzy Mice are not men and social experiments do not equal reality. The reality was the high dense roman populations were very vunerable to plagues. The antoine plague in 180. The cyprian plague in 3rd century. The plague of Justinian in the 530s. Also the population of Rome rapidly declined in the 5th century which is after Rome became christianized.

You seem to forget that massive difference between the military system of early and mid republic to that of late and entire imperial period the third and second centuries B.C.” The Roman Republic functionally completed the conquest of peninsular Italy in 272 B.C. with the capture of Tarentum. The peninsula was split between Roman territory (about 1/3 of the land area) and the territory of the socii, formally Rome’s allies but in practice subjugated communities required to send troops to Rome’s armies and denied any other foreign policy (but internally self-governing). Michael Taylor has noted that Rome’s ability to mobilize manpower seems largely unconnected to its relatively weak state finance, the main constraint on raising armies were the costs of turning farmers into soldiers, but those costs were often not borne by the state. At Rome, for instance, the Roman state paid only for the wages of Roman soldiers and the food of allied soldiers. Roman soldiers had to pay for their food out of their wages and allied soldier’s wages were presumably paid by the community required to send them to Rome’s armies. Both sets of troops had to pay for all of their own equipment (which for the wealthy might include a horse) out of pocket. Consequently, as Taylor has demonstrated, measuring state finance isn’t a good way of getting at military power, because a lot of military spending wasn’t done by the state and so state expenditures are very poorly correlated to military strength or success. Very wealthy states often struggled to field top-rate armies that could compete with Rome. It's this fact. The lack of a standing army which causes the entire population to be militarized. And rome great ability to mobilize them through its soci alliance system and the tradition of levying. here Roman rolling recruitment and continuous warfare meant that all Roman men of any property were going to spent quite a few years in the army. That’s a cost too: keeping the soldiers out doing something which in turn created this deep well of trained (and equipped, see below) reserves in case of disaster or the need to open a second (third? fourth?) front. Rome’s habit then of always having at least a couple of small wars going could be seen, I’d argue, as a significant investment in quality.} is what made them able to raise a legion after legion during these days

Really great channel

"But now mighty Rome exhausts me. Here, when is a day my own? I am tossed about in the vortex of the city; and my life is wasted in laborious nothingness." - Martial (Epigram 10.58)

simply a beautiful exposition

Good video! Roman Citizenship is also a major factor. After the "Edict of Caracalla" in 212, successful military service did not result in roman citizenship anymore as it had done before. It was part of the deal until this point (at least if you served in a legion, not in auxiliary troops). The rights of citizens varied probably over the centuries, but most of the time likely included things like the right to vote, access to minor posts, doing commerce or buisiness in general and marrying freeborn women. From todays perspective it looks like a brutal multi-class-system to us (which I would not want to trade, sure ;) ), but we are speaking from a very high horse here: Keeping the emipre together, safe and stable did of course benefit the people in tumultuous times and keeping it together without access to modern technology in all its facetes , knowledge in applied economy and international legal standards that prohibit/shape warfare is a hell of a task. And this seemingly humanitarian act (which it was not, tax-revenue and popularity with the populus to name some motives) may have backstabbed the empire in the long run.

The late Roman Empire fell in the same trap as the Carthage was, during the Punic Wars centuries before. The Carthaginians were much more individualist and mercantile society -- they simply hired all the military power money can buy from foreign mercenary forces, guided by simple cost-benefit analysis. This is even reflected in the urban architecture -- very few public spaces and institutions, where the public and the elite can mingle together and reinforce social cohesion. Hannibal was a rare product of Phoenician "patriotism", above and beyond the monetary incentive. In sharp contrast, the Roman Republic at the same time, was a tight knit nation of motivated citizen-soldiers raised in a society with strong public culture and traditions of duty and honor. Roman soldiers were fighting (and building) for their common future, while the hired fodder -- the next paycheck. The cycle continues...

@JavaBum

Жыл бұрын

That and the fact that, for a time, eyes were only on the East. I think that once Constantinople became the focus, the west (and Roma), were disregarded. It could have possibly been a whole "Been there; done that" mentality that led specifically to what you're referencing here. I have had this same outlook for years. As far as Hannibal goes, though, I think it was pure vengeance than anything else. He defied Carthage in order to attack Italy.

@kaloarepo288

Жыл бұрын

Medieval and renaissance Italian city states also relied on mercenaries and condottieri.Machiavelli laments this in his books.Venice in particular hired swiss,German and Croatian mercenaries right down to 18th century when a noted German general responsible for some victories over the Turks near Corfu.

@awf6554

4 ай бұрын

Yes, the video glosses over the cultural shift you're referring to.

It would seem the division of the Empire played a tremendous role in its collapse as well. Though it made sense to have smaller subdivisions for administration it doesn’t seem like the wealthier East shared revenue with the west. Even in the early imperial period provinces such as Egypt and Syria really were what financed (and fed) the empire. It would also seem (according to The Fate of Rome) a cooling and drying climate in the 3rd - 4th centuries reduced the agricultural capacity of the western provinces, Italy in particular. A video on the Roman taxation system and how much revenue various provinces produced (and how this changed over time) would be very interesting. Thanks for the great work!

I just loved the video. I think the history without its economy context is just 50% of the story.

It's hard to understate how corrupt and hated the Roman central state was when the empire feel. It's no wonder no one wanted to fight for it.

Very nice analysis. Succint and convincing arguments put forth. A pleasure to watch!

It would be interesting anylize the vigor and the situation of the army in the eastern Roman Empire at the time of the Western Roman Empire, I'm sure that besides the possesion of the richest provinces , the morale of the army was similar

this is the perfect video length for the subject at hand! Also alot these issues are repeating today funnily enough. It's great that you pointed out that incentives are crucial to maintain manpower. And that Martial decline is not a mere matter of "entire populace lazy" but rather "why is the population lazy, what changed?"

Late Rome had an issue with the basically making people surfs. As people were more tied to a land. It wasn't giving people the opportunity as it did before.

interesting analysis, but i think it overlooked the very roman idea of loss of virtue. writers in the principate were already complaining about declining morality and laments of wealth and urbanization. not only was it economically unfeasible, the late romans were much more interested in being businessmen than being farmers and warriors. this shift of values and identity is what gibbons is referring to (probably).

I am not a historian and have no basis for this, but could increased malnutrition have decreased the number of healthy recruits to conscript? When I hear that the population remained the same, yet the economy declined sharply, my intuition is that the Romans were much poorer and could not afford as much food, meaning that they would have become physically less capable. I can see a German living in a sparsely-populated area having more living space to hunt game and sow crops, which would make him grow up larger and become a more ideal recruit. I know some Late Roman authors did write about the scarcity of tall enough recruits. I also suspect that Romans felt detached from their corrupt government and saw nothing good from caring about it or paying any attention to it. They probably still had a great pride in Romanness and identified with some sense of Christian "endurance". The government would have been seen as a force of nature that's a thousand miles away and just does what it does. I also think this is a more charitable explanation than Vegetius' as why Romans were more inclined to join the provincial Limitanei: You were more likely to actually fight barbarians rather than participate in some general's personal ambition to become emperor.

Another edifying video! If you haven't seen it yet, may I recommend "Geat and Maethild" on the Northworthy Sagas and Stories channel here on KZread. ⚔️

Thanks To vídeo.

Yes, Gibbon - "Decline and fall of the Roman empire" - me as a non English speaker thought my skill in English was good enough..... after ordering the first volume of Gibbons........was I wrong or what.....

excellent

Old explanation: Weak men New explanation: TAXES

It sounds like the late Romans had an inflation problem that kept them from paying soldiers properly. Where did all the money go? Somebody in government must have been spending money in the wrong places.😠 Congratulations on the outstanding graphics!💪

@doppelwaffen

Жыл бұрын

When Julian became sole emperor, he fired 40.000 courtiers in Constantinople.

@meduseld6610

Жыл бұрын

@@doppelwaffen Abolish the Abrahamics

I've wondered if the increasing population of Europe made it more difficult to rule. Roman politics seems difficult to scale and deal with problems.

High social inequality demands a breakdown of the motivations of those classes because they are not the same. The elites cold be decadent while the average Romans life and benefits declined. Debasing not only their coinage, but replacing their yeoman class with slaves and plantations was briefly touched on in your video.

Rome degenerated as a economy because it became a oligarchic imperium(instead of a republic where officials could easily be held accountable) so incompetence became harder to get rid of in Rome.

Why do these Roman decline videos remind me of 🇺🇸?? 🤣😂😢

@hemidas

Жыл бұрын

It happened once and it shall happen again.

@tnbspotter5360

Жыл бұрын

Overpaid do-nothings in the big cities lead the way in every decline.

@soldiermeyer2790

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, It is a similar case if we talk about a decline. But America is a cheapest version of the beautiful and eternal Roma Eterna.

@LiquidfirePUA

Жыл бұрын

Because it's a pattern that happens each time Weak men create hard times etc

Sounds like Gibbon was not too inaccurate, but merely imprecise. I remember from my own reading of him that he focused much more on internal problems than one would typically assume, especially the scheming that was causing so much infighting. Of course when he wrote archaeology was in its infancy at best, and therefore the written sources available to him would focus on what was happening at the top of Roman society or in religion at the expense of everything else.

If they kept Britain while searching for some gold and silver mines there, will that helped the situation? Of course, it is a big gamble but even I see no other choice here becaus using the Germanic mercenaries led to a new set of problems like you said.

@vonp588

Жыл бұрын

Britain was too expensive for Rome to maintain, and relying on the hope of finding new mines would have been silly.

Thank you for giving a proper explanation for the late WRE's military decline. A lot of attempted explanations devolve into silliness about moral degeneracy or racial pseudoscience.

Early Roman Chads, late Roman virgins.

True, Gibbon's argument is one-dimensional and simplistic. But this does not detract from the fact that decadence was an issue in the late Western Empire. The average man in Italia would have been degenerate and soft compared to the average German. Also, since the time of Emperor Gallienus in the 260s, the patricians were no longer obliged to serve in the legions.

@mstash5

Жыл бұрын

The average farmer in Italia would have still been strong.

@waltonsmith7210

Жыл бұрын

How do you even quantify something as vague and subjective as that? I can guarantee theyd be less degenerate as most of us internet commenters lol.

@Tonyx.yt.

Жыл бұрын

@@mstash5 but almost all of them disappeared in favour of latifundium with 1 rich owner and many landless poor working for them

@cerdic6586

Жыл бұрын

@@waltonsmith7210 It cannot be empirically quantified. It is a rational deduction. Germanic folk lived much tougher lives and retained a competitive martial culture. Roman life, even for the peasantry, was comparatively gentle and prosperous. It reminds me of what Caesar wrote of the Belgae tribe in his diary. He admired them for their strength and courage, as they shunned material luxuries.

@majungasaurusaaaa

Ай бұрын

@@cerdic6586 Also, tribal life has the freedoms and vigor to produce martial people. Dependent and docile farmers don't make good fighters. A late ancient germanic tribesman would have made a great recruit. His medieval feudal serf descendant would have been useless in battle. Diet is also an often overlooked factor. Tribal people had low population density and could often supplement their diets with hunting and fishing. This resulted in a higher protein diet and a far stronger body and mind compared to purely agrarian peoples who lived mostly off carbs and were malnourished.

The thumbnail is like when you have vs lost North Africa.

Hi, very nicely summarized, I just thought of including another factor = sudden cooling at the end of Antiquity and the related increase in the migration of the European population (great lack of food). And further, regarding Christianity as a unifying empire ideology (Greco-Romans + barbarians), which essentially basically killed the soul of ancient Rome, it seems to me that the problem was mainly that this ideology/philosophy was more Eastern than Western and that's why it took on better in the eastern part of the empire and, on the contrary, could start causing problems in the west, where the philosophy/strategy for most periods was focused on building alliances/confederation rather than a unified dictatorship, which I think was also shown later = e.g. the great schism of 1054, or even later the so-called the Reformation of Western Christianity 🤔

Constant wars had killed off all the good strong men.

Sounds eeringly similar to today.

Ah! The algorithm has finally taken me back to you since 2 the Future.

‘The Collapse of Complex Societies’ , Joseph A.Tainter.

Great and serious assessment - cheap moralism isn't a good tool for historical research.

I believe that it was the Arabic scholar Ibn Khaldun who used the term "asabiyyah" to describe what he felt was a fundamentally crucial component of any civilization. "Asabiyyah" was the strength of social bonds within a society. You could also call it "patriotism", "solidarity", "community spirit", or "social capital". Societies with lots of asabiyyah were strong and expanded; societies with weak asabiyyah were weak and contracted. Currently, Russia has very low asabiyyah and China has relatively high asabiyyah. American asabiyyah is declining but might revive. Gaius Mucius Scaevola exemplified early Roman asabiyyah. Donald Trump exemplifies negative asabiyyah.

@juanzulu1318

Жыл бұрын

Fair point. We see it declining in Europe in various dimension: politically like during Corona debates. And socially during rhe ongoin migration crisis.

@KevinJohnson-cv2no

Жыл бұрын

That classic tradcu ck explanation of "COmMuniTy!". Rome was subject to constant civil wars over the competing ambitions of selfish generals lol, no one ever gave a fuck about the "community"; and that's what led it into greatness. I know this may be hard to hear for tradcu cks, but societies obsessed over community hardly progress pass the agricultural stage lol; personal ambition needs to be incentivized to grow a nation to greatness, otherwise no one bothers. Rome fell because of Christian values eroding the values of ambition and power present in Roman culture, and because of trashed economics making it hard to provide an incentive for the legions to serve.

@Froblyx

Жыл бұрын

@@KevinJohnson-cv2no First, could you translate the phrase "tradcu ck" for me? I cannot recall seeing it any Latin source. Second, you seem to be offering the contrarian view that selfishness inspires people to cooperate with each other. That is not my impression of human nature, nor is it compatible with what we know about leadership. Military leaders who wade into the fight inspire their men to greater efforts (See Caesar on the Gallic wars), whereas leaders who remain aloof from the fighting do not inspire such efforts. The Japanese were able to accomplish impressive military feats while they shouted "Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!" (it had to be shouted three times), which meant something like "We're all in this together!" There are many other examples of this.

@KevinJohnson-cv2no

Жыл бұрын

@@Froblyx Tradcu ck is a modern word for people who define their entire identity by traditionalism, can't think for themselves, and champion things like "Nationalism and community". Just as bad as SJW's, both preach hive mind beliefs. Also, cooperation is overrated; humans are social not in a cooperative sense, but a competitive one. Alexander, Caesar, etc. would only take to the field of battle because they knew doing so would inspire the troops and gain them more power, IE. selfishness. And the troops would be inspired by their bravery, not their selflessness; what's so selfless about fighting to advance *YOUR OWN* campaign of conquest?

@Froblyx

Жыл бұрын

@@KevinJohnson-cv2no I strongly urge you to read some anthropology works as well as material on human evolution. Robin Wright wrote a number of books on these issues, most notably "The Moral Animal" and "The Evolution of God". These are not hand-waving books -- they are more scientific in style. Peter Turchin has written a number of books here, the most significant for your purposes is "War and Peace and War". Remember, too, Napoleon's dictum that "In war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one." Lastly, please note how a bunch of poorly armed but determined Muslims were able to defeat the most powerful military in the world, and how the Ukranians, with one-tenth the GDP of Russia, were able to kick Russian butts. That performance was driven not by competitiveness among Ukrainians but by their community feelings.

What are your thoughts on the lead poisoning theory being a contributing factor in Rome's downfall?

@velorn8927

Жыл бұрын

That is complete bullshit, romans did not consume or use much more lead then people did in many countrys up to the modern day, many watersystems just less then a hundred years ago whre build using lead pipes amd stuff so yeah not really good for you but lead had certainly nothing to do with romes downfall 😂😂😂😬

@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl

Жыл бұрын

It's a myth

@JavaBum

Жыл бұрын

@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl I agree. While it did have its impact, it wasn't a factor in the western fall.

@velorn8927

Жыл бұрын

@@JavaBum yeah but i guess the impact was that people where less healthy, but rly you cannot attribute a psychological factor to that and only a small part of the population would rly have access to it, also working with bronze would also cause health issues for example, people in the past did lots of dangerous stuff without protection so lead would actually be one of many many things to influence... lets say mental and physical health in the roman empire

@JavaBum

Жыл бұрын

@@velorn8927 While in some regards, I can agree, but the thing is, this would have been seen all over the known world during the Bronze Age, and it wasn't. At least to not that degree.

I think they should have kept expanding the The Empire or had some form of industrial revolution

Someone who enjoys a higher standard of living and less willing to join the army because of low pay may be logical, but can also be seen as a bit soft. I do think the other potential drivers mentioned in the video are insightful. But once again, cruel, megalomaniacal rulers and the increasing wealth divide are also signs of decay and softness on the part of the upper classes. We can see in the Republic Rome depended very much on the leadership of the tough, practical patricians.

Looking at battles the late roman soldier was just as good as the early, when they had good emperors to lead them the late roman army crushed any foe, Persians, goths,franks,etc.

Roman elites were lazy and having good life.. but that lead to situation where people didn't wanted to fight for that system.

¿Porque USA de ahora se parece un poco al tardo Imperio tomano?, no se es que esa etapa parece muy actual. En la II GM, sobraban los voluntarios pata el ejército, ahora es mas difícil. No se de repente me equivoco.

the idea bind us together as a whole. when it is dying the country is dying.

The barbarization of the army was one the worst thing that happened and to think it was started by Marcus Aurelius🧐

@des12zero

Жыл бұрын

Marcus Aurelius didn't started. Romans had been using barbarians in the army for centuries. First other Italians (socii) then non Italians (Germans,Gauls, Greeks, etc). Julius Caesar had Gallic officers in his army, Arminius was German and he served during Augustus'reign. The barbarization of the army happened gradually for hundreds of years.

You should look up how the average life of a civilian was and how awful they were treated pretty much as near slaves.

if the WRE was given Egypt and all the revenue that came with it could it have survived much longer?

the video ends at 14:53 😔

Maybe they should have taken what some of these "high standard of living" people had and pay recruits with it. It would be a dismal society where the military bleeds everything dry, but then again that's late empire.

Do a video on figures who benefited from putting the empire into decline, so we can jeer at them.

It's not like they didn't have martial vigor there simply wasn't enough of them thanks to all the civil wars and plagues that happened.

This was destined to happen the Roman Emperial system was already showing signs of diminishing returns in the 3rd century.

I remember you saying in another video that the late roman army was about 500,000 strong, one of the reasons it was a problem. But then why were the hunns such a problem. Why didn't they just wipe them out rather than being terrorized?

Great video as normal. I still love Gibbon though, it's a masterpiece of history writing.

I find it hard to believe that the Africa province was so rich back then bc they are rather poor now.

I wonder if modern politicians are aware of the similarities. In Britain at least we have never had more people in politics, paid for by an effectively oppressed electorate, politicians who devote most of their energies to fighting each other.

Where are you from i wonder about your accent are you german?

Why why 14:53 minutes :((((

The solution was to appropriate the rich landowners' revenue and holdings and wealth to bolster the treasury. That will avoid defacing the currency and generate enough revenue to appease the pleb soldier recruits.

There are very significant contradictions in your analysis of the economic situation in the roman empire: 1. If the eastern part was richer, why did it also lose the native soldiers and start recruiting barbarians? 2. If the economy was so bad in the west for people to rebel, why wouldn't the poorer citizens join the army? Alternatively, how could their standard of living be higher if the economy was collapsing? 3. Why were Pannonia and Dalmatia, provinces that were part of the roman empire for centuries, different from the rest of the empire? And if they were filled with potential Roman recruits then why were the Goths settled there? The entire narrative doesn't add up.

I always thought that the idea of rome becoming too decadent made no sense even at its prime rome was far from a modern civilization. life was brutal you couldn't be decadent unless you were nobility and even they had the deal with a lot of things we don't have to deal with anymore .even in the 1600s life was way better. only in the last 50ish years has life gotten so easy that decadence could become a problem .