I’m very much interested in the petty King Donnus and his family. They apparently controlled the Alpine pass Caesar used to reach Transalpine Gaul. Any information on them would be fascinating. The Arch of Susa is magnificent.
im interested in the petty kings during the fall of the western empire, i remember reading in Gibbon and durrant about some Germanic warrior king who was still paying roman troops to guard the danubian alps during the late 400s early 500s
Following on from your recent Sulla video: *Why did the office of Dictator, after 300 years or common use, disappear after Gaius Servilius Geminus held it 202 BC, only to be re-invented by Sulla and Caesar in the 1st Century BC?* There were certainly crises that would have warranted its use in the 2nd Century (eg the Cimbrian wars or the unrest around the Gracchi). Was it replaced by the _Senatus Consultum Ultimum_ ? If so, why the change, and why the change back later?
Softball question(s) easy enough to go off the top of the head to answer (and I’ve seen most of your videos and don’t think I’ve seen this addressed directly): is studying roman history relevant or helpful in understanding current events or our own recent history? Why or why not? Do you do this? What are the dangers of overapplying historical analysis or comparison in modern contexts? Are there also dangers to ignoring the history altogether? Hope that wasn’t too much, love the content and wish you a splendid day
Another interesting video, thank you! I've always been fascinated with the rise of Emperor Majorian. There's some that believe he could have been a second Aurelian type of figure, had he just been able to live longer. Though I've also heard from others that he was just delaying the inevitable fall since the western romans didn't even really have an army they could truly call their own, as they were majority comprised of foederati. Would love to hear your take on this somday.
Why doesn’t anyone talk more in detail about the life, career, and role of Lepidus? When and how did he and Caesar connect? Why didn’t he swoop in with his legion upon Gais Julius’s murder? Is it true Ceasar had an informant put a paper in his hand right before he died that detailed the conspiracy, but he didn’t read it?
Hey all. 16:26 History hit recently released on TH-cam their fantastic Long form documentary On the teutoburg forest disaster. Highly recommend, of the utmost quality. Tristan Hughes if the ancients podcast hosts. Great talk Adrian. Love the scrappy and decorated Batavians. Conquerors of the Thames River. Rebellious province in 69 AD.
But surely the Arminius episode would reinforce the idea of NOT allowing troops to be used close to home. He was a German, with German auxiliary troops, who, with friends among the tribes, led Varus & his Legions into a deadly trap. If he had not be posted to the German front he could never have done it. So auxiliaries were generally posted at some distance from their place of origin.
Hello. Seems Legio VII Gemina raised by Galba in AD 68 in Hispania is quite unique. In term of being creation by usurper. Is there is any other similar units raised usurpers and retained by victors of civil wars of empire? Also what province did you consider the best in terms of starting usurpation/rise of new Emperor?
I've always struggled with how we should see these units in a modern context. Are they professional armies there to keep the peace like we do today, or should we see them more as highly militarized settlers sent to create a new ethnic grouping that is loyal to Rome in a bid to divide and conquer the locals.
Some ethnic groups which contributed to the Auxiliary Cohorts of the Roman Army, were recruited for their specialist skills, weapons or fighting style. Thus they were employed where they could make the greatest contribution to the advancement of Roman aims in any areas where they might be useful. For instance the Batavians were noted as light horsemen, good in river crossing assaults etc & were used in quite large numbers in the advance through Britain, with it's many rivers & good riding country. So, to retain these specialist skills within the Roman forces, it would be useful to continue to recruit from their original homeland, or make efforts, when recruiting through inter-marriage with local women near permanent garrisons, by enlisting sons of the soldiers in these units, to continue training etc in the traditional methods of the units involved. Surely in some cases at least a knowledge of a groups ethnic background, with a pride in that, & the special status & skills that go along with that background, along with the history of the unit within the Roman army & any notable achievements, awards & honours gained, would encourage a desire to continue their traditions within the Roman forces. The fact that some of these units, witness the Batavians & Tungrians in the Vindolanda Tablets, served under high ranking members of their own tribes, even noting a 'King' among the Prefects of these units, who were fully Romanised Auxiliary Cohort commanders, would surely initiate, or continue, the sense of fellow feeling & comradery, & an 'ethnic' pride, which they would wish to promote & continue when recruiting following generations. Otherwise the Romans might have needed to look to the original homelands of such units to retain the required specialist skills in the Empire's forces.
I wouldn't put too much weight on that. Sometime between the end of the 4th and the early 6th C foederati change from being irregular regiments raised from client peoples outside the empire into regular units recruited mainly from within the empire (i.e. Romans). Procopius makes mention on the adoption, codification and training in Hunnic tactics both in regular "Roman" cavalry units and "Hunnic" foederati; training can supplant any sort of local talent as required. Effectively any sort of initial identity held by a unit will get worn down over time.
I heard that the Pax Romana wasn’t really all that peaceful and tribes and cities etc etc within the provinces were occasionally allowed to make war upon each other. How much truth is there in this?
Not an expert, but most notable "Pax" periods do not mean a stop to all fighting, just an absence of wars between major powers, or large-scale/long-period warfare. (i.e. The "Pax Britannia"/Concert of Europe of the 19th Century had some doozies, but it was generally considered less violent than the Napoleonic Wars that proceeded it.)
The new Wolf Hall has gone Woke. It's peppered with black people and it spoils the suspension of disbelief. There's even a token one on Henry VIII's privy council. What a shame. They never falsely write Chinese people back into English history, I notice.
Thank you for this series
Glad to see those subscriptions rise!
Absolutely. Though, I do quite like being part of an elite anorak community :)
Just wanted to say I love this format
Love your videos!🎉🎉🎉
I’m very much interested in the petty King Donnus and his family. They apparently controlled the Alpine pass Caesar used to reach Transalpine Gaul. Any information on them would be fascinating. The Arch of Susa is magnificent.
im interested in the petty kings during the fall of the western empire, i remember reading in Gibbon and durrant about some Germanic warrior king who was still paying roman troops to guard the danubian alps during the late 400s early 500s
thank you so much for these. Really enjoy listening to them and find your presentation very relaxing. Thanks again
Following on from your recent Sulla video: *Why did the office of Dictator, after 300 years or common use, disappear after Gaius Servilius Geminus held it 202 BC, only to be re-invented by Sulla and Caesar in the 1st Century BC?* There were certainly crises that would have warranted its use in the 2nd Century (eg the Cimbrian wars or the unrest around the Gracchi). Was it replaced by the _Senatus Consultum Ultimum_ ? If so, why the change, and why the change back later?
3:55 if you want to skip the opening preamble
Excellent and highly informative video as always!
Thank you.
Softball question(s) easy enough to go off the top of the head to answer (and I’ve seen most of your videos and don’t think I’ve seen this addressed directly): is studying roman history relevant or helpful in understanding current events or our own recent history? Why or why not? Do you do this? What are the dangers of overapplying historical analysis or comparison in modern contexts? Are there also dangers to ignoring the history altogether?
Hope that wasn’t too much, love the content and wish you a splendid day
Empire bulider reminded me about your new video
Another interesting video, thank you!
I've always been fascinated with the rise of Emperor Majorian. There's some that believe he could have been a second Aurelian type of figure, had he just been able to live longer. Though I've also heard from others that he was just delaying the inevitable fall since the western romans didn't even really have an army they could truly call their own, as they were majority comprised of foederati.
Would love to hear your take on this somday.
Love your vids and books!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why doesn’t anyone talk more in detail about the life, career, and role of Lepidus? When and how did he and Caesar connect? Why didn’t he swoop in with his legion upon Gais Julius’s murder? Is it true Ceasar had an informant put a paper in his hand right before he died that detailed the conspiracy, but he didn’t read it?
and did Romans have paper at all?
gratias ago tibi, magister meus!
Hey all. 16:26
History hit recently released on TH-cam their fantastic Long form documentary On the teutoburg forest disaster. Highly recommend, of the utmost quality. Tristan Hughes if the ancients podcast hosts.
Great talk Adrian. Love the scrappy and decorated Batavians. Conquerors of the Thames River. Rebellious province in 69 AD.
But surely the Arminius episode would reinforce the idea of NOT allowing troops to be used close to home. He was a German, with German auxiliary troops, who, with friends among the tribes, led Varus & his Legions into a deadly trap. If he had not be posted to the German front he could never have done it. So auxiliaries were generally posted at some distance from their place of origin.
Hello. Seems Legio VII Gemina raised by Galba in AD 68 in Hispania is quite unique. In term of being creation by usurper. Is there is any other similar units raised usurpers and retained by victors of civil wars of empire?
Also what province did you consider the best in terms of starting usurpation/rise of new Emperor?
I've always struggled with how we should see these units in a modern context. Are they professional armies there to keep the peace like we do today, or should we see them more as highly militarized settlers sent to create a new ethnic grouping that is loyal to Rome in a bid to divide and conquer the locals.
Some ethnic groups which contributed to the Auxiliary Cohorts of the Roman Army, were recruited for their specialist skills, weapons or fighting style. Thus they were employed where they could make the greatest contribution to the advancement of Roman aims in any areas where they might be useful. For instance the Batavians were noted as light horsemen, good in river crossing assaults etc & were used in quite large numbers in the advance through Britain, with it's many rivers & good riding country. So, to retain these specialist skills within the Roman forces, it would be useful to continue to recruit from their original homeland, or make efforts, when recruiting through inter-marriage with local women near permanent garrisons, by enlisting sons of the soldiers in these units, to continue training etc in the traditional methods of the units involved. Surely in some cases at least a knowledge of a groups ethnic background, with a pride in that, & the special status & skills that go along with that background, along with the history of the unit within the Roman army & any notable achievements, awards & honours gained, would encourage a desire to continue their traditions within the Roman forces.
The fact that some of these units, witness the Batavians & Tungrians in the Vindolanda Tablets, served under high ranking members of their own tribes, even noting a 'King' among the Prefects of these units, who were fully Romanised Auxiliary Cohort commanders, would surely initiate, or continue, the sense of fellow feeling & comradery, & an 'ethnic' pride, which they would wish to promote & continue when recruiting following generations. Otherwise the Romans might have needed to look to the original homelands of such units to retain the required specialist skills in the Empire's forces.
Quite likely. I can also imagine a screaming stop to this practice after Arminius shafted the Rhine garrison.
I wouldn't put too much weight on that. Sometime between the end of the 4th and the early 6th C foederati change from being irregular regiments raised from client peoples outside the empire into regular units recruited mainly from within the empire (i.e. Romans). Procopius makes mention on the adoption, codification and training in Hunnic tactics both in regular "Roman" cavalry units and "Hunnic" foederati; training can supplant any sort of local talent as required. Effectively any sort of initial identity held by a unit will get worn down over time.
I heard that the Pax Romana wasn’t really all that peaceful and tribes and cities etc etc within the provinces were occasionally allowed to make war upon each other. How much truth is there in this?
Not an expert, but most notable "Pax" periods do not mean a stop to all fighting, just an absence of wars between major powers, or large-scale/long-period warfare.
(i.e. The "Pax Britannia"/Concert of Europe of the 19th Century had some doozies, but it was generally considered less violent than the Napoleonic Wars that proceeded it.)
Goths elegibly came from Sweden, not Denmark 😏
The new Wolf Hall has gone Woke. It's peppered with black people and it spoils the suspension of disbelief. There's even a token one on Henry VIII's privy council. What a shame. They never falsely write Chinese people back into English history, I notice.