🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴 🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus 😉 Or become an official Maiorianus member on TH-cam: th-cam.com/users/Maiorianus461join
I live in Britain. The British Empire ended long ago and yet every year people are still awarded titles such as the Order of the British Empire, (OBE) Member of the British Empire (MBE) or Commander of the British Empire (CBE) Titles and institutions frequently linger on long after the realities on the ground have changed beyond recognition.
I live in the European Union. The Democracy and Rule of Law is being destroyed in the name of saving the Democracy. Yet I expect people to talk about living in Democracy long after we have a line of Kaisers ruling from Brussels.
The British Empire still exists. It's called "The Commonwealth of Nations" , to which it transformed via the Westminster Statutes. Most of the members acknowledge the sovereignty of the British Crown. In Canada and Australia, for example, the Governor-General exerts his power on behalf of the Crown. The difference with the Roman Empire is that, apart from the fact it was still called "the Roman Empire" past 476 by contemporaries, we can read the provisions of the Westminster Statutes, whereas, speaking of the Roman Empire, we cannot.
The biggest anachronism when studying the Roman empire is very act of looking at a Map. The Romans did not really have maps. Even the most learned of scholars would have only had a vague idea of how Geography fit together. France would have just been referred to a North land to the East of the Alps along with a list of its principle cities and rivers. Even the Emperor would not have known very much about the extent of their empire. The common man would have been completely ignorant of the world knowing only of the provinces from stories and travelers tales.
@@NovusodMaps existed. People weren't nearly as ignorant as you're assuming. The Roman military alone would be transplanting people all over the world. It was also possible to send messages around within weeks. In fact, there were even rapid signal systems, including fire signals and a sort of synchronized hydraulic station (not much is exactly known how they worked, but they are attested). Ancient political leaders obviously had a good grasp of their own territory. Ancient empires had censuses. Normal people could also receive news just like we often still do today: word of mouth.
Probably no more than the average briton cared about the loss of the global empire and the rise of American domination. Pride is affected, but on a day to day basis youre just trying to raise and feed your kids
@@Novusod Educated Romans and those who needed to know for practical purposes would certainly have had an idea of the shape and extent of the imperial territory. Never heard of Ptolemy's map? Or the Tabula Peutingeriana?
Specifically for Gaul there must have been big news. Gaul was arguably the most important part in terms of logistics of the western empire in its later years.
“What then is, generally speaking, the truth of history? A fable agreed upon'.” - Napoleon Bonaparte, in conversation with Emmanuel-Auguste-Dieudonné comte de Las Cases, at St Helene on the 20th November 1816 - Your analysis is a good start, but I suspect merely scratches the surface of “the truth of history.”
Saint Augustine, Paulus Orosius, Sidonius Apollinar and many others were very aware of the decline and fall of the Roman empire as their writings attest. Emperor Justinian made it clear that the campaigns against the vandals and goths goal was a "renovation imperii" by which he meant recovering what had been lost in the previous century.
Yes, it's why we have this view of falling Roman empire in 400's, but like this video suggest, maybe it's a view based on propaganda made by emperor, while roman culture and way of life was in reality thriving in western part of Europe.
@@AsinarVanMartinaqthriving is a little bit a stretch. Of course the Roman people didn't just die off. But there were changes and I think the middle ages are a clear showcase that a lot was lost and forgotten indeed.
The Roman Philosopher Boethius could see it. He wrote about it in his book the consolation of Philosophy. The Romans had their metaphoric "frog boiled" as it were, and in a sense it was not as obvious to the rank and file. If the Romans had their own time machine and could travel back to the time of Augustus I'm sure they'd notice a huge decline.
"Decline" does not connote "Fall." The history of many nations has a long string of declines and recoveries; China is one example. Nobody called the broken periods of China "the Fall of the Chinese Empire." Boethius didn't call the events of the 5th century "a fall" either. Some say, "Western civilization is on the decline" and "the U.S. is falling, its economy is crumbling". That's nothing more than rhetorical figures and does not reflect the end of Western civilization and the U.S. The history after 476 is a millennium-long process of transformation of the Roman Empire that affected the so-called Medieval Europe. It could be that what we view as the history of the Middle Ages is the history of the Roman Empire.
@@gaiusflaminius4861 I tend to agree, of course, in retrospect, I still think we can call it a "collapse" or "fall" in shorthand, but as you say, that is not entirely accurate and is more of a more contemporary conception of events as we see them now, although as you say, oddly we do not often say so of China, India, the Caliphates, or many other cultures that went through similar changes, invasions, and collapses, and in so many ways the medieval and early modern eras are sort of a continuation of that same culture, even down to our present era to some degree arguably.
@@inteallsviktigt It is post-knowledge. The result is different, but only because we have an opportunity to observe it. But even if you choose the post-knowledge as a measure, why do you align the decline timeline to the year 476 and not, say, 472 (the sack by Ricimer), 455 (the sack by Vandals and the end of the Theodosian dynasty), 568 (the Lombardian invasion), 843 (the division of the Empire between the descendants of Charlemagne) or 1453?
@ well historical lines are drawn somewhere and leaves a grey gap of debate. Even the start of WW1 or WW2 have legitimate reasons for putting the start of the conflict way earlier. Just how you could argue today that WW3 might already have started, but we just can’t tell as it happens utill a historical climax occurs. But the end we mark is the western Roman Empire as Emperor Zeno legislatively became the sole emperor of Rome, even if territories did pledge allegiance to the eastern Roman Empire. There where more independent from Rome than dependent as it slowly turned in to something else. Even the Ottoman Empire laid claim as the legitimate continuation of Rome the Roman empire
People saw themselves as Romans up to 800. It is why the title had any value to Charlemagne, and his ability to take it stemmed mostly from the inability of the emperor in Constantinople to keep the Muslims at bay. Roman identity became Christian identity, as everyone was Christian they were thus Roman.
For us it may seem insane that Romans wouldn’t get desperate with the removal of the last western emperor, but we need to remember that pretty much everything remained the same. The average Roman would still see the same bureaucrats, senators, guardsmen and so on. They didn’t have the benefit of hindsight to understand that their world would change in a few hundred years.
It's amazing how long the Roman empire truly lasted. I don't see the Roman Empire as "ancient," but rather as the beginning of the modern era. Its culture has reverberated to the present.
The Franks cosplayed as romans, the Lombards cosplayed as romans, the Hellenes cosplayed as romans, and then the Saxons got their turn and then by that point it was the high middle ages and time for the crusades
Greeks have been part of that empire for 500+ years, they clearly have more rights to cosplay as Romans. By the time the empire was divided, Greeks have been Romans and knew of themselves as such. And they did their best to unite falling Western Roman empire. If Eastern USA falls but Western remains, it's still USA, just smaller.
@@erenliebert4576 they didnt "do their best to reunite the empire", they just wrecked Italy. The empire had fallen, nobody was willing to accept it though, and they just sorta pretended it still existed and kept doing that even when constantinople was a glorified vassal of the Ottomans
@alextaunton3099 the Gallia became part of Rome long after Greece, but neither Gauls or Italians didn't save any unity within empire and surrendered to invading German tribes, while Cosntantinopole stood strong for millenia after fall of Rome and had control over many Eastern parts of empire for hundreds of years until eventual fall.
Hispania and Gallia under the Goths and Franks was pretty much Roman, in culture and population, language, infrastructures. Romanity transcended borders.
childeric king of the franks was burried at tourne as a high roman official in 481 ad and his son clovis in 507 ad was named a roman consul by anastasius. the franks and the goths were incorporated in to the roman system after the end of the 5th century and replaced roman administrators in the west.
I think of it in terms of 'not seeing the forest for the trees.' When on the ground in the city of Rome, for example, if life under Odoacer or Theodoric isn't particularly different from what it had been before, the sense of a 'collapse' is hard to mentally credit. On the other hand, if last week your town was intact, and this week you are among only five percent of survivors scrambling in the rubble just to subsist, perspective changes. The question is whether we examine life of the individual, or life of a symbolic 'empire.' I rather look at the transformative marker with two components--the self-sufficient continuity of government and cultural survival in the West, and the Hellenizing of the East. By the time the official Eastern Roman language had become the standard in Constantinople, it feels to me that Rome, as it is popularly known, had given way to an 'inheritor' state. This 'next generation' was still officially of the Roman family, but it was not Rome in the classic sense. However, it maintained continuity of government, which gives it the right to claim a Roman identity. In the West, the elements were far more murky with only the language surviving and hybridizing/changing in places, Christianity spreading and influencing things, but continuity of government lost. So it has less claim to the Roman identity. But again, after the Italian peninsula was ravaged during the final attempt at reconquest, to an outsider perspective, it seems the Roman Empire had truly visibly fallen. I think we make the mistake of wanting to plug an official 'date' on the collapse when really it was a slow steady transformation or disintegration. The Empire was too big to collapse all at once. But it could change slowly.
Does any one remember how Belusarius came home to Constantinople after winning back Rome only to die as a pauper in rags? One of the more haunting scenes from the annals of the decline of ancient rome
Thats a myth, Belasarius in his old age came out of retirement to defended the Balkans with like 300 veteran, possibly retired soldiers from his previous campaigns and some civilians against thousands of raiding Kutrigurs using trickery that he mastered during his Western campaigns. Then he returned to his comfy retirement afterwards were Justinian defended him after being unlawfully imprisoned on charges of conspiracy.
how the empire fell when the eastern emperor was recognised as lord of the west until the 800 ad events and his image was minting in western imperial coins by the federate german rulers of the west ?
In 522AD ostrogoths attacked the Burgundian Kingdom with the intention to annex it. The franks managed to save their burgundian allies but the ostrogoths still managed to annex a part of the burgandian kingdom between the Durantius and Isara rivers.
If Justinian had not launched his Gothic Wars, the Roman Empire might have recovered. The Visgoths and Ostrogoths united, which would have left only the Franks out, but the Saxon Wars ignited the Viking raids that might have left the Franks willing to unite with the Goths for help.
They might, but the argument looks like a strawman to me. Any commentary reflects the context of the era in which it was made. The fact that there was no evidence to suggest the people of the time were thinking in terms of "the fall of the Empire" until Zosimus, who wrote about "the fall" from his pagan perspective and Comes Marcellinus, combined with the concept of the fall as devised by a few intellectuals, one of whom pitched the idea to Justinian the First, who, in turn, used it to bring about his political design, speak up for its artificiality. Any attempts to impose the modernist approach is presentism which severely skews historicity.
@ Exactly. About as roman as as you can get. But he probably spoke Goth too, considering he had to deal with Gothic nobles and made separate law systems for Goths and Romans. So not only was he as educated as any Roman Emperor, but probably more so considering his position as ruler of Goths and Romans
@@andrelegeant88 yea, gothic was the most common language among the gothic population and they even had the entire Bible translated into Gothic script about 80 years before Theoderic, it’s why all the goths were Christian before even crossing the border into Rome, if they were that adamant about their culture being preserved and separate from the Romans such as laws, they’d probably be content on keeping the Gothic language for at least the time of Theoderic, but we can see with the Visigoths that eventually they would have just merged with the Romans and put it to the way side, or merged into Latin to make a Romance language, which I’m sure hispania lamgauges have some
Fascinating. Our family via my mother Guigni has been traced way back to very early Rome , but for certain we know we got our coat of arms around 1279 in Florence where we became very powerful family in the wool trade thus our coat of arms is three sheep’s hooves on a red background and we married into the Medici family . There is some information that our ancestor was Brutus yes that infamous one himself . When you start up the way back machine you better be prepared for unpleasant surprises.
crazy to think about that because of the 30 years war starting 536ad in italy, the burgunians lost their ally against the francs and got conquered as a result by them. also i would say it is fair to say that from an constantinople perspective it is fair to say that rome had fallen because there is this dictator theoderich in charge that not is under the influence of the east, if theoderich had won however, we today wouldnt say the rome had fallen at the beginning of theoderichs reign ;) i think its 536 when the roman empire had fallen, because it had grewn apart between the east and the west and fought itself in its former heartlands. great video on the whole subject of the fall of the roman empire and the emergin new powercenters to think about ( byzans and fancia) even when francia wasnt talked about in this video (would maybe been great the make this connection in the end) none the less, well done!
By the way, our Palazzo still exist in Florence it is a centerpiece building now I believe owned by the government, but there are some incredible statues in its courtyard . So in a very strange way, I recognized in writing all this that in reality because of the memory and the genetic coding there is a part of me that’s been alive for over 2000 years and about 90 generations maybe 100. . It certainly gives one a different perspective on life.
@Maiorianus could you make a video about the City of Rome when Charlemagne was crowed emperor of The Holy Roman Empire? What kind of place was Rome then?
Hi there. Thus, in a symbolic and political sense, the "Roman Empire" could be said to have lasted in the form of the Maniots' resistance until the 1830s, when the last remnants of Byzantine autonomy were fully subsumed into the modern Greek state. I got this from Chatgpt questions I asked. Surely a very decent case could be made for the end of the roman empire actually happening in the 1830s ie Ancient rome -- Byzantine empire -- Maniot holdouts -- finally subjugation very specifically in 1832 ; 1832 - Kingdom of Greece Established: In 1832, the Treaty of Constantinople expanded Greek independence and established the Kingdom of Greece under King Otto of Bavaria, who was chosen by the European powers to rule the fledgling nation. It would be great to get a video on this and an argument that the papacy or mount athos is a roman continuity...... Strongest one and most direct is Mani peninsula I feel although it seems like the papacy if they wanted to could have a good claim on it...
And somehow made an unexpected comeback in the future and turned into the Imperium of Man and becoming a pan-human empire. "We're so fucking back boys!"
@@FullMetalMudcrabyea it’s all fun and games until you’re born into the same factory that you will work at for the rest of your lives with the worst bosses possible and little to no sunlight and 5 hours of sleep MAX
Will you ever make a video on the medieval Commune of Rome, a revolutionary “Neo-Roman” republic formed in 1143 after a popular revolt against the Papacy? The commune elected Giordano Pierleoni as its first patrician and created a new senate in the image of the ancient one, outlaw cleric Arnaldo da Brescia supported the commune and formed a splinter faction of the Catholic Church within Rome that was almost a “proto-Protestant” reformation of sorts.
You are correct. The people in Hispania and Africa were just as much Roman citizens. And Constantine never intended to divide the Empire . He changed the Seat of authority, and for good reason. Also, since Christianity was made lawful in all parts of the Empire, it shows that those parts were still under Roman authority .
there always been a single Roman Empire, no many , the Byzantine empire is a creation of English scholars to divide people in the 1800, today the Hellenic, Türkiye and the Russ can claim to be Romans. I enjoy you videos. saludos
Has anyone seen a movie called Kampf um Rom? It's a German movie about Theodoric's successors and the fall of the Gothic Kingdom in Italy? It's not very good. But it's the only movie I can think of about the Byzantine reconquest of Italy and its destructive effects.
Thank you so much for this amazing video! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
Great video, hindsight is a wonderful thing but I'm sure people living through the period didn't feel the Empire had fallen. They had so many civil wars and invasions it probably felt like business as usual
If the question is what did the Romans think of the fall of Rome is that they were so sick of the corruption, civil wars, and foreigners migrating that they were probably glad when it fell.
There are people who think that, in some sense, the Roman Empire has not fallen yet -- or that it fell quite recently, probably at the end of World War 1 (with the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the end of the Tsars).
All my life of 79 years I had many dreams of a connection to Julius Caesar but it turned out not as I thought it would . My belief is I our genes carry bits of ancient memories that’s what explains our showing up in a place and thinking for sure or feeling for sure that we have been there before when we know for a fact, we’ve never been in that place before not in our memories in our lives . But we still have that feeling when I first travel to Rome and walking throughout the city there were spots that I immediately knew but how is that possible? I had never been there before in my lifetime but part of me had very long ago.
Something tells me that the Italian Romans finding themselves living in an Italy without a Roman emperor and under a king must have been perceived their situation as a downgrade. Not that they thought of themselves as being robbed of previous higher status - I think they must have understood that greatness was lost because they couldn't manage it, the architecture of power changed and they had new masters now - people are sensible to power and when it changes, they feel that the status quo has changed.
The fall of the Roman Empire took centuries...It's not like one day they were Roman and went to bed speaking Latin and woke up the next day Italians speaking Italian.
I was thinking that you were reviewing the immediate aftermath of the 549 massacres which effectively decapitated Roman civilization by destroying the patrician class and severely depopulated Italy. The remaining Romans who witnessed the farce of the Narses final triumph and later clung to a meagre lifestyle while others fled behind the walls of the wrecked city to avoid the massacres inflicted by the Lombards, especially during the floods which accelerated the disintegration of classic architecture must have considered themselves cursed!
Should mention the natural disasters and the pandemic which really undermined the rule of Justinian. BTW, the ancient comic strip “Prince Valiant” nowadays no longer references Roman events. Probably because the writers have little knowledge of them.
I feel like you are somewhat downplaying how ethnic relations were between the Goths and the Romans during Gothic rule. I read somewhere that Romans for example were not allowed to serve in the army of the Gothic occupation and were discriminated against. Is this true?
It's interesting you mention a time traveller. That's essentially the plot of the novella "Lest Darkness Fall" by L. Sprague de Camp, who is projected by some means to Rome without hope of return so sets out to stop the impending "darkness" or "fall" - well after the "fall" in 476 AD in Ostrogothic Italy on the eve of the war with the Eastern Roman Empire. The viewpoint of the Romans is similar to that proposed by you
There is no way I can see that the 'average' Roman was not aware that their country had once controlled vast territories that were now gone. If I were a Roman at that time I would probably hope for nothing more than to be left in peace by the barbarians to live my life, make a living, and provide for my family. And i would worry that an army could appear over the hill on any given day. No, I can't see it being a happy time for anyone with a few spare minutes to think.
All due respect, the Romans would certainly have felt their world was different and that their empire, their side at least, was over. They would know the provinces of Gaul, Britannia, Hispania, Africa, Pannonia and Dalmatia were gone. They would have known that there were no more Augusti. They would know they were under the control of Germanic kings. Sure, monuments and infrastructure were protected and repaired during the enlightened rule of Theodoric the Great, and that was probably nice, however, the Roman people would know they were a subject people to a foreign warrior elite. That's why they supported the Byzantine invasion under Justinian. They knew they were conquered and wanted liberation, despite the fact the Ostrogoths were pretty decent rulers.
If the common person felt they were under the rule of foreign Kings, there would be no need to patronize them by pretending to rule in the name of the eastern emperor
@@cjraymond8827 some cities actually stayed loyal to the Goths, some did switch to the Romans, but all cities don’t want to be sacked so it cant really be said just cause that happened during war time their affiliation was clear. From the writings they did want Theodoric to be emperor, nor did they treat Odoacer as foreign ruler as he was military magistrate in the Roman army, both ruled officially underneath the eastern emperor with Roman titles, and it’s why the Gothic war went on for so long was because Romans constantly kept joining the “Gothic” Army. Although it’s labeled in history as the Gothic War, in hindsight it seems to be more of a devastating Civil War, especially because of the sides constantly using Romans and Germans to fight on both sides
@@chancewingo Just look at Milan. It jumped to the Byzantine side at the first opportunity and then was obliterated when the Goths came back. Based on what I have read, the Romans did not join the Goths. They did resent the Greek "Romans" who, when they came in to "liberate" them, proceeded to tax them like crazy. But overall, the Romans in Italy did not want the Goths ruling them. And the Byzantines ended up winning, but what they won was a smoldering wreck that was ripe for the taking by the Lombards. That was the true end of antiquity.
C’mon now, if there had been reporters in Rome interviewing the people ,with microphones and cameras, the Romans would have thot they were spy’s from the Goths and had them executed! Haha!
I think the eastern side sacrificed the Western Empire because they realized that they could not sustain it's size on the money and grain coming in and the entire population and the very reason why it split in half with the eastern side containing all of the big economic centers including Egypt, Antioch, and Constantinople and by getting rid of the east they no longer had to finance the entire western empire bc the western empire couldn't sustain itself with the minerals, grain, and economic conditions there and the east had to finance the west and therefore when it split the western empire no longer had the money or manpower for army's because of endless incursions from barbarians and so they had to give land to these barbarians and then that created even less taxes and so they had to give more land up and so on. The eastern empire rarely intervened on their behalf until it got to the point it was already too late. It was actually a smart move otherwise it would have been the entire empire and it's the ONLY reason it survived for another 1000 years. It must have sucked to be in Rome though
Indeed .. before AD 1453 .. did they even consider let alone admit that the Roman Empire had 'fallen'? Rome - Old Rome - had been besieged, taken, and gutted a few times between the consecration of Constantinople as 'an' imperial capital .. the only one that really mattered .. and New Rome's own falls (to the Venetian adventurers and finally the Turks)? As with the British Empire the Roman Imperium evaporated in parts, the latter over centuries and the former within a few decades; yet, as with Romanitas, there are still vast swathes of 'Britishness' sprawling along on their own historical paths .... History can be informative - if we let it. Yey! ;o)
The evidence is clear that the cites had depopulated by the 4th century and were not rebounding. A deurbanized Western Empire would result in a new economic reality and in profound differences in social structure. The Western Empire had become less “civilized” without urban centers and was more “barbaric” and conducive to barbarian rule. Barbarian culture moved south from Germany and overtook the West. It was much more than military conquest. The West survived but was not the old urbanized Rome. Paganism continued to decline as it was an urban religion that required temples, elaborate rituals, and wealthy patrons to fund the temples and rituals. Christianity, a more economical religion and a religion of the poor, continued its displacement of paganism. The Western Empire demonetized after the 4th century. Coin usage drastically declined as did long distance trade. I believe it was largely epidemiology that precipitated all this. Roman cities spread the pathogens that had moved into the Mediterranean from Asia.
It’s technically wrong saying that the eastern roman empire was ruled by Greeks because in some Regions of the balkans people were Latin speakers and not even called Greek the same goes for Egypt, Anatolia and the middle east. A lot of Emperors weren’t even greek. Thats just what bothers me by calling them just greeks
@goldenapple1754 my friend bout greeks control the known world from 400 bc was ruled by greeks greek alfabet (your alfabet today is greek not roman)the Roman's came And becameGreco-Roman Greeks wrote old testament new testament as you know it today Roman collapse greek last till 1453
There was no fall, just no longer a need for a emperor in the west since germanic chieftains ruled yet administration still done by romans. The seat of the empire was in Constantinople from then on.
The Eastern Romans blew it by invading in the first place when they already had the Persians and Avars on their doorstep. Justinian was a great emperor in many respects, but his foreign policy was utterly moronic, sticking his fingers in too many pies and causing many headaches fro his successors.
@@septimiusseverus343 I meant more, how, when Belisarius had roll'd up the Vandalls, then the Ostrogoths, and had the last of them (goths) holed up in Ravenna, ready to surrender, how did they (Belisarius, Justinian, and the Eastern Romans in general), manage to start a 20 years long brutal war to the death which destroyed large swathes of Italia, and utterly ended any chance of actually putting the Empire back together again.
@@andreweaston1779 Because most of the Ostrogothic army mainly retreated to the North, the weak Ostrogothic leadership allowed for a quick Roman conquest of Italy despite their army still being mostly intact. After the Byzantians captured the Gothic King Vitiges, the Ostrogoths soon after would rally under the leadership of Totila, a leader who was more militarily capable than either Vitiges or Theodohad and he would proceed to take back most of Italy especially after Justinian neglected to pay his Italian troops leading them to desert their post and possibly even defect to Totila.
@@andreweaston1779 In reality it was Narses who deserves more credit for the Italian conquest as he was the one who crushed the Ostrogoths in 2 pitch battles, then proceeded to crush the Franks and Alemani troops that was invited into Italy by the desperate Ostrogoths. Justinian certainly didn't lack for quality generals, Belisarius conquered North Africa and Sicily, Narses conquered Italy, his loyal Babarbarian general Mundus conquered Illycrum at the cost of his and his son's life and Liberius who was 80+ year old at the time is credited for conquering southern Spain.
You hammer Justinian pretty regularly for the Gothic wars. But is fighting to reclaim what was stolen from you, immoral or wrong? "A war that should have been over quickly dragged on for almost 30 more years" This lands at the feet of the invaders, not the Romans. It is not wrong to reclaim your home. You're applying your current values here to a vastly different society.
Actually the Greek speaking Senatorial Class had all left by that time as well as much of the Equestrians too. Please understand that the Romans were always Greek speakers and not Latin speakers even though many could speak Latin. Those Equestrians who had enough money ascended to the aristocracy by default. Thus, the powerful Greek speakers were absent, leaving the lower classes who spoke Latin like the northern invaders. Law, administration and trades as well as the army all spoke Latin but there were no Roman leaders!!!! Instead, the barbarians took their seats in the Senate masquerading as Romans.
I am half Eastern Roman half Cuman, Romans were West Asians Anatolian Neolithic Farmers J2 haplogroup then they mixed it was all Europe inhabited by early European farmers meaning Anatolian Neolithic Farmers
🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus
😉 Or become an official Maiorianus member on TH-cam: th-cam.com/users/Maiorianus461join
I live in Britain. The British Empire ended long ago and yet every year people are still awarded titles such as the Order of the British Empire, (OBE) Member of the British Empire (MBE) or Commander of the British Empire (CBE) Titles and institutions frequently linger on long after the realities on the ground have changed beyond recognition.
I live in the European Union. The Democracy and Rule of Law is being destroyed in the name of saving the Democracy. Yet I expect people to talk about living in Democracy long after we have a line of Kaisers ruling from Brussels.
What about the sandy shores of the Virgin Isles? Empire!
The British Empire still exists. It's just called the Commonwealth now.
The British Empire still exists. It's called "The Commonwealth of Nations" , to which it transformed via the Westminster Statutes. Most of the members acknowledge the sovereignty of the British Crown. In Canada and Australia, for example, the Governor-General exerts his power on behalf of the Crown. The difference with the Roman Empire is that, apart from the fact it was still called "the Roman Empire" past 476 by contemporaries, we can read the provisions of the Westminster Statutes, whereas, speaking of the Roman Empire, we cannot.
Its the muslim empire now
I am so early, Rome is still being built.
lmao
Hi Romulus😂
I'll be back in a day. It should be done by then.
@@threedragonstalk2123I've got bad news for you
@@threedragonstalk2123Sorry, delayed due to labor dispute. Come back next Thursday.
I heard someone refer to the Ostrogoths as the “inheritors of Rome” and this video makes me understand why a bit better
They are they had a vested interest and did so.
The Germans are the true inheritors of the Roman Empire
I wonder if the common man in cities like Rome even knew that the Empire and lost parts like France or if they knew it, did they even care.
The biggest anachronism when studying the Roman empire is very act of looking at a Map. The Romans did not really have maps. Even the most learned of scholars would have only had a vague idea of how Geography fit together. France would have just been referred to a North land to the East of the Alps along with a list of its principle cities and rivers. Even the Emperor would not have known very much about the extent of their empire. The common man would have been completely ignorant of the world knowing only of the provinces from stories and travelers tales.
@@NovusodMaps existed. People weren't nearly as ignorant as you're assuming. The Roman military alone would be transplanting people all over the world.
It was also possible to send messages around within weeks. In fact, there were even rapid signal systems, including fire signals and a sort of synchronized hydraulic station (not much is exactly known how they worked, but they are attested).
Ancient political leaders obviously had a good grasp of their own territory. Ancient empires had censuses. Normal people could also receive news just like we often still do today: word of mouth.
Probably no more than the average briton cared about the loss of the global empire and the rise of American domination. Pride is affected, but on a day to day basis youre just trying to raise and feed your kids
@@Novusod Educated Romans and those who needed to know for practical purposes would certainly have had an idea of the shape and extent of the imperial territory. Never heard of Ptolemy's map? Or the Tabula Peutingeriana?
Specifically for Gaul there must have been big news. Gaul was arguably the most important part in terms of logistics of the western empire in its later years.
“What then is, generally speaking, the truth of history? A fable agreed upon'.”
- Napoleon Bonaparte, in conversation with Emmanuel-Auguste-Dieudonné comte de Las Cases, at St Helene on the 20th November 1816
- Your analysis is a good start, but I suspect merely scratches the surface of “the truth of history.”
Maiorianus, Historian here. I think we need a video on the top 10 Roman historical events that you would like to witness. If you had a time machine
Saint Augustine, Paulus Orosius, Sidonius Apollinar and many others were very aware of the decline and fall of the Roman empire as their writings attest. Emperor Justinian made it clear that the campaigns against the vandals and goths goal was a "renovation imperii" by which he meant recovering what had been lost in the previous century.
Yes, it's why we have this view of falling Roman empire in 400's, but like this video suggest, maybe it's a view based on propaganda made by emperor, while roman culture and way of life was in reality thriving in western part of Europe.
@@AsinarVanMartinaqthriving is a little bit a stretch. Of course the Roman people didn't just die off. But there were changes and I think the middle ages are a clear showcase that a lot was lost and forgotten indeed.
This is history better than what public schools can teach.
Videos like this are why I sponsor this channel. Given me a lot to think about. I have to rethink 476 AD.
Thanks! Very well presented 🎉
Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it
The Roman Philosopher Boethius could see it. He wrote about it in his book the consolation of Philosophy. The Romans had their metaphoric "frog boiled" as it were, and in a sense it was not as obvious to the rank and file. If the Romans had their own time machine and could travel back to the time of Augustus I'm sure they'd notice a huge decline.
"Decline" does not connote "Fall." The history of many nations has a long string of declines and recoveries; China is one example. Nobody called the broken periods of China "the Fall of the Chinese Empire." Boethius didn't call the events of the 5th century "a fall" either. Some say, "Western civilization is on the decline" and "the U.S. is falling, its economy is crumbling". That's nothing more than rhetorical figures and does not reflect the end of Western civilization and the U.S.
The history after 476 is a millennium-long process of transformation of the Roman Empire that affected the so-called Medieval Europe. It could be that what we view as the history of the Middle Ages is the history of the Roman Empire.
@@gaiusflaminius4861 I tend to agree, of course, in retrospect, I still think we can call it a "collapse" or "fall" in shorthand, but as you say, that is not entirely accurate and is more of a more contemporary conception of events as we see them now, although as you say, oddly we do not often say so of China, India, the Caliphates, or many other cultures that went through similar changes, invasions, and collapses, and in so many ways the medieval and early modern eras are sort of a continuation of that same culture, even down to our present era to some degree arguably.
@@gaiusflaminius4861well when the Roman Empire collapsed it was gone. The Chinese empire always returned and therefore had temporary points of decline
@@inteallsviktigt It is post-knowledge. The result is different, but only because we have an opportunity to observe it. But even if you choose the post-knowledge as a measure, why do you align the decline timeline to the year 476 and not, say, 472 (the sack by Ricimer), 455 (the sack by Vandals and the end of the Theodosian dynasty), 568 (the Lombardian invasion), 843 (the division of the Empire between the descendants of Charlemagne) or 1453?
@ well historical lines are drawn somewhere and leaves a grey gap of debate. Even the start of WW1 or WW2 have legitimate reasons for putting the start of the conflict way earlier. Just how you could argue today that WW3 might already have started, but we just can’t tell as it happens utill a historical climax occurs.
But the end we mark is the western Roman Empire as Emperor Zeno legislatively became the sole emperor of Rome, even if territories did pledge allegiance to the eastern Roman Empire. There where more independent from Rome than dependent as it slowly turned in to something else.
Even the Ottoman Empire laid claim as the legitimate continuation of Rome the Roman empire
People saw themselves as Romans up to 800. It is why the title had any value to Charlemagne, and his ability to take it stemmed mostly from the inability of the emperor in Constantinople to keep the Muslims at bay. Roman identity became Christian identity, as everyone was Christian they were thus Roman.
For us it may seem insane that Romans wouldn’t get desperate with the removal of the last western emperor, but we need to remember that pretty much everything remained the same. The average Roman would still see the same bureaucrats, senators, guardsmen and so on. They didn’t have the benefit of hindsight to understand that their world would change in a few hundred years.
Their world would change within 100 years. The Gothic Wars tore Italy to shreds (the Lombard conquest was the final nail in the coffin).
@@cjraymond8827 "It is better to maintain liberty by arms than to stain it by the payment of tribute." - Lombards
It's amazing how long the Roman empire truly lasted. I don't see the Roman Empire as "ancient," but rather as the beginning of the modern era. Its culture has reverberated to the present.
@@pbohearn huh 🤔
Odoacer also minted coins of Julius Nepos too until his death.
as all the western elites did after 476 ad and until 800 ad with all eastern roman emperors.
1:06 he would probably say ''wtf is this barbarian saying, i dont know his language''
The entire early middle ages can be summed up as "a bunch of barbarians and greeks cosplaying as classical romans"
The Franks cosplayed as romans, the Lombards cosplayed as romans, the Hellenes cosplayed as romans, and then the Saxons got their turn and then by that point it was the high middle ages and time for the crusades
Greeks have been part of that empire for 500+ years, they clearly have more rights to cosplay as Romans. By the time the empire was divided, Greeks have been Romans and knew of themselves as such. And they did their best to unite falling Western Roman empire. If Eastern USA falls but Western remains, it's still USA, just smaller.
@erenliebert4576 had not the Gauls been part of the roman empire longer? The italians? Looks like I found the constantinople stan
@@erenliebert4576 they didnt "do their best to reunite the empire", they just wrecked Italy. The empire had fallen, nobody was willing to accept it though, and they just sorta pretended it still existed and kept doing that even when constantinople was a glorified vassal of the Ottomans
@alextaunton3099 the Gallia became part of Rome long after Greece, but neither Gauls or Italians didn't save any unity within empire and surrendered to invading German tribes, while Cosntantinopole stood strong for millenia after fall of Rome and had control over many Eastern parts of empire for hundreds of years until eventual fall.
Hispania and Gallia under the Goths and Franks was pretty much Roman, in culture and population, language, infrastructures. Romanity transcended borders.
childeric king of the franks was burried at tourne as a high roman official in 481 ad and his son clovis in 507 ad was named a roman consul by anastasius. the franks and the goths were incorporated in to the roman system after the end of the 5th century and replaced roman administrators in the west.
no
@@easterlinear yes
I think of it in terms of 'not seeing the forest for the trees.' When on the ground in the city of Rome, for example, if life under Odoacer or Theodoric isn't particularly different from what it had been before, the sense of a 'collapse' is hard to mentally credit. On the other hand, if last week your town was intact, and this week you are among only five percent of survivors scrambling in the rubble just to subsist, perspective changes. The question is whether we examine life of the individual, or life of a symbolic 'empire.' I rather look at the transformative marker with two components--the self-sufficient continuity of government and cultural survival in the West, and the Hellenizing of the East. By the time the official Eastern Roman language had become the standard in Constantinople, it feels to me that Rome, as it is popularly known, had given way to an 'inheritor' state. This 'next generation' was still officially of the Roman family, but it was not Rome in the classic sense. However, it maintained continuity of government, which gives it the right to claim a Roman identity. In the West, the elements were far more murky with only the language surviving and hybridizing/changing in places, Christianity spreading and influencing things, but continuity of government lost. So it has less claim to the Roman identity. But again, after the Italian peninsula was ravaged during the final attempt at reconquest, to an outsider perspective, it seems the Roman Empire had truly visibly fallen. I think we make the mistake of wanting to plug an official 'date' on the collapse when really it was a slow steady transformation or disintegration. The Empire was too big to collapse all at once. But it could change slowly.
Great video!
Really good video again!
Does any one remember how Belusarius came home to Constantinople after winning back Rome only to die as a pauper in rags?
One of the more haunting scenes from the annals of the decline of ancient rome
It‘s a Myth that Belisarius became poor in the End of his lifetime
Thats a myth, Belasarius in his old age came out of retirement to defended the Balkans with like 300 veteran, possibly retired soldiers from his previous campaigns and some civilians against thousands of raiding Kutrigurs using trickery that he mastered during his Western campaigns. Then he returned to his comfy retirement afterwards were Justinian defended him after being unlawfully imprisoned on charges of conspiracy.
how the empire fell when the eastern emperor was recognised as lord of the west until the 800 ad events and his image was minting in western imperial coins by the federate german rulers of the west ?
I think the problem is about people wanting a specific date instead of overlapping periods
In 522AD ostrogoths attacked the Burgundian Kingdom with the intention to annex it. The franks managed to save their burgundian allies but the ostrogoths still managed to annex a part of the burgandian kingdom between the Durantius and Isara rivers.
If Justinian had not launched his Gothic Wars, the Roman Empire might have recovered. The Visgoths and Ostrogoths united, which would have left only the Franks out, but the Saxon Wars ignited the Viking raids that might have left the Franks willing to unite with the Goths for help.
if justinians' plague never happened then things would be different
Thank you o' mighty Algorythmus for leading me to this jewel of a documentary.
Those ancient comments about the new germanic rulers sound more like appeasement - especially those that were coming from the bishops.
They might, but the argument looks like a strawman to me. Any commentary reflects the context of the era in which it was made. The fact that there was no evidence to suggest the people of the time were thinking in terms of "the fall of the Empire" until Zosimus, who wrote about "the fall" from his pagan perspective and Comes Marcellinus, combined with the concept of the fall as devised by a few intellectuals, one of whom pitched the idea to Justinian the First, who, in turn, used it to bring about his political design, speak up for its artificiality. Any attempts to impose the modernist approach is presentism which severely skews historicity.
Glad Theoderic is getting the credit he deserves. It’s amazing how propaganda back then is still mainstream to this day
Flavius Theodericus who may not have even known Gothic, was raised in Constantinople, and who spoke Latin and Greek.
@ Exactly. About as roman as as you can get. But he probably spoke Goth too, considering he had to deal with Gothic nobles and made separate law systems for Goths and Romans.
So not only was he as educated as any Roman Emperor, but probably more so considering his position as ruler of Goths and Romans
@chancewingo Did they even speak Gothic?
@@andrelegeant88 yea, gothic was the most common language among the gothic population and they even had the entire Bible translated into Gothic script about 80 years before Theoderic, it’s why all the goths were Christian before even crossing the border into Rome, if they were that adamant about their culture being preserved and separate from the Romans such as laws, they’d probably be content on keeping the Gothic language for at least the time of Theoderic, but we can see with the Visigoths that eventually they would have just merged with the Romans and put it to the way side, or merged into Latin to make a Romance language, which I’m sure hispania lamgauges have some
Fascinating. Our family via my mother Guigni has been traced way back to very early Rome , but for certain we know we got our coat of arms around 1279 in Florence where we became very powerful family in the wool trade thus our coat of arms is three sheep’s hooves on a red background and we married into the Medici family . There is some information that our ancestor was Brutus yes that infamous one himself . When you start up the way back machine you better be prepared for unpleasant surprises.
Love the videos
crazy to think about that because of the 30 years war starting 536ad in italy, the burgunians lost their ally against the francs and got conquered as a result by them. also i would say it is fair to say that from an constantinople perspective it is fair to say that rome had fallen because there is this dictator theoderich in charge that not is under the influence of the east, if theoderich had won however, we today wouldnt say the rome had fallen at the beginning of theoderichs reign ;) i think its 536 when the roman empire had fallen, because it had grewn apart between the east and the west and fought itself in its former heartlands. great video on the whole subject of the fall of the roman empire and the emergin new powercenters to think about ( byzans and fancia) even when francia wasnt talked about in this video (would maybe been great the make this connection in the end) none the less, well done!
By the way, our Palazzo still exist in Florence it is a centerpiece building now I believe owned by the government, but there are some incredible statues in its courtyard . So in a very strange way, I recognized in writing all this that in reality because of the memory and the genetic coding there is a part of me that’s been alive for over 2000 years and about 90 generations maybe 100. . It certainly gives one a different perspective on life.
@Maiorianus could you make a video about the City of Rome when Charlemagne was crowed emperor of The Holy Roman Empire? What kind of place was Rome then?
There were no caesars nor augustes any more. How did they view that?
Good question
The thing broke apart in the fall and spread shards everywhere. People couldn't walk barefoot anymore.
Perhaps this is how Asia is viewing Europe today.
Great stuff.
It makes sense for both cultures to embrace each other
Hi there. Thus, in a symbolic and political sense, the "Roman Empire" could be said to have lasted in the form of the Maniots' resistance until the 1830s, when the last remnants of Byzantine autonomy were fully subsumed into the modern Greek state. I got this from Chatgpt questions I asked. Surely a very decent case could be made for the end of the roman empire actually happening in the 1830s ie Ancient rome -- Byzantine empire -- Maniot holdouts -- finally subjugation very specifically in 1832 ; 1832 - Kingdom of Greece Established:
In 1832, the Treaty of Constantinople expanded Greek independence and established the Kingdom of Greece under King Otto of Bavaria, who was chosen by the European powers to rule the fledgling nation. It would be great to get a video on this and an argument that the papacy or mount athos is a roman continuity...... Strongest one and most direct is Mani peninsula I feel although it seems like the papacy if they wanted to could have a good claim on it...
Plot twist: Rome never fell
And somehow made an unexpected comeback in the future and turned into the Imperium of Man and becoming a pan-human empire. "We're so fucking back boys!"
Actually kinda true if you take into consideration that the papacy was the supreme power in Europe until the early modern era
@@FullMetalMudcrabyea it’s all fun and games until you’re born into the same factory that you will work at for the rest of your lives with the worst bosses possible and little to no sunlight and 5 hours of sleep MAX
@@Kingedwardiii2003 The planet broke before the Imperial Guard did
Belisarius Cawl made it all possible!
Will you ever make a video on the medieval Commune of Rome, a revolutionary “Neo-Roman” republic formed in 1143 after a popular revolt against the Papacy? The commune elected Giordano Pierleoni as its first patrician and created a new senate in the image of the ancient one, outlaw cleric Arnaldo da Brescia supported the commune and formed a splinter faction of the Catholic Church within Rome that was almost a “proto-Protestant” reformation of sorts.
You are correct. The people in Hispania and Africa were just as much Roman citizens.
And Constantine never intended to divide the Empire . He changed the Seat of authority, and for good reason.
Also, since Christianity was made lawful in all parts of the Empire, it shows that those parts were still under Roman authority .
I wonder if some western Rome inhabitants moved to east Rome
What books did you read for this video? Because im really interested.
there always been a single Roman Empire, no many , the Byzantine empire is a creation of English scholars to divide people in the 1800, today the Hellenic, Türkiye and the Russ can claim to be Romans. I enjoy you videos. saludos
Very interesting!
Has anyone seen a movie called Kampf um Rom? It's a German movie about Theodoric's successors and the fall of the Gothic Kingdom in Italy? It's not very good. But it's the only movie I can think of about the Byzantine reconquest of Italy and its destructive effects.
Thank you so much for this amazing video! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
very interesting
Great video, hindsight is a wonderful thing but I'm sure people living through the period didn't feel the Empire had fallen. They had so many civil wars and invasions it probably felt like business as usual
Majorian, can do a video reacting to Cody from Alternate History Hub and his video on what if Rome conquered Germania ?
If the question is what did the Romans think of the fall of Rome is that they were so sick of the corruption, civil wars, and foreigners migrating that they were probably glad when it fell.
Well after the death of Justinian, the ERE started to decline, then in 1204 it sealed its fate to its total downfall in 1453.
There are people who think that, in some sense, the Roman Empire has not fallen yet -- or that it fell quite recently, probably at the end of World War 1 (with the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the end of the Tsars).
If other people king rules Roman land, you are no longer part of Empire, just Roman minority in new germanic kingdom.
All my life of 79 years I had many dreams of a connection to Julius Caesar but it turned out not as I thought it would .
My belief is I our genes carry bits of ancient memories that’s what explains our showing up in a place and thinking for sure or feeling for sure that we have been there before when we know for a fact, we’ve never been in that place before not in our memories in our lives . But we still have that feeling when I first travel to Rome and walking throughout the city there were spots that I immediately knew but how is that possible? I had never been there before in my lifetime but part of me had very long ago.
Something tells me that the Italian Romans finding themselves living in an Italy without a Roman emperor and under a king must have been perceived their situation as a downgrade. Not that they thought of themselves as being robbed of previous higher status - I think they must have understood that greatness was lost because they couldn't manage it, the architecture of power changed and they had new masters now - people are sensible to power and when it changes, they feel that the status quo has changed.
The fall of the Roman Empire took centuries...It's not like one day they were Roman and went to bed speaking Latin and woke up the next day Italians speaking Italian.
Awww- Look @ you- you’re Handsome😊
I was thinking that you were reviewing the immediate aftermath of the 549 massacres which effectively decapitated Roman civilization by destroying the patrician class and severely depopulated Italy. The remaining Romans who witnessed the farce of the Narses final triumph and later clung to a meagre lifestyle while others fled behind the walls of the wrecked city to avoid the massacres inflicted by the Lombards, especially during the floods which accelerated the disintegration of classic architecture must have considered themselves cursed!
At what point in time did the roman empire end?
Time to play Age of Justinian mod for Attila Total War and restore Rome’s glory!
Should mention the natural disasters and the pandemic which really undermined the rule of Justinian. BTW, the ancient comic strip “Prince Valiant” nowadays no longer references Roman events. Probably because the writers have little knowledge of them.
Unfortunately, we can see now that what we think of Rome ended then or before even.
I feel like you are somewhat downplaying how ethnic relations were between the Goths and the Romans during Gothic rule. I read somewhere that Romans for example were not allowed to serve in the army of the Gothic occupation and were discriminated against. Is this true?
It's interesting you mention a time traveller. That's essentially the plot of the novella "Lest Darkness Fall" by L. Sprague de Camp, who is projected by some means to Rome without hope of return so sets out to stop the impending "darkness" or "fall" - well after the "fall" in 476 AD in Ostrogothic Italy on the eve of the war with the Eastern Roman Empire. The viewpoint of the Romans is similar to that proposed by you
There is no way I can see that the 'average' Roman was not aware that their country had once controlled vast territories that were now gone. If I were a Roman at that time I would probably hope for nothing more than to be left in peace by the barbarians to live my life, make a living, and provide for my family. And i would worry that an army could appear over the hill on any given day.
No, I can't see it being a happy time for anyone with a few spare minutes to think.
thank you for no lying to us the modern man . saludos
A lot of them went to the other half of the empire and continued life as usual
So when did the Roman Empire fall?
Destroyed the italian peninsula for centuries.
How did these latter Romans view the acronym ‘SPQR’ ?? Did it have any meaning anymore?
what about portugal
All due respect, the Romans would certainly have felt their world was different and that their empire, their side at least, was over. They would know the provinces of Gaul, Britannia, Hispania, Africa, Pannonia and Dalmatia were gone. They would have known that there were no more Augusti. They would know they were under the control of Germanic kings. Sure, monuments and infrastructure were protected and repaired during the enlightened rule of Theodoric the Great, and that was probably nice, however, the Roman people would know they were a subject people to a foreign warrior elite. That's why they supported the Byzantine invasion under Justinian. They knew they were conquered and wanted liberation, despite the fact the Ostrogoths were pretty decent rulers.
If the common person felt they were under the rule of foreign Kings, there would be no need to patronize them by pretending to rule in the name of the eastern emperor
@@cjraymond8827 some cities actually stayed loyal to the Goths, some did switch to the Romans, but all cities don’t want to be sacked so it cant really be said just cause that happened during war time their affiliation was clear.
From the writings they did want Theodoric to be emperor, nor did they treat Odoacer as foreign ruler as he was military magistrate in the Roman army, both ruled officially underneath the eastern emperor with Roman titles, and it’s why the Gothic war went on for so long was because Romans constantly kept joining the “Gothic” Army.
Although it’s labeled in history as the Gothic War, in hindsight it seems to be more of a devastating Civil War, especially because of the sides constantly using Romans and Germans to fight on both sides
@@chancewingo Just look at Milan. It jumped to the Byzantine side at the first opportunity and then was obliterated when the Goths came back. Based on what I have read, the Romans did not join the Goths. They did resent the Greek "Romans" who, when they came in to "liberate" them, proceeded to tax them like crazy. But overall, the Romans in Italy did not want the Goths ruling them. And the Byzantines ended up winning, but what they won was a smoldering wreck that was ripe for the taking by the Lombards. That was the true end of antiquity.
It never ended. It just wasn't maintained.
C’mon now, if there had been reporters in Rome interviewing the people ,with microphones and cameras, the Romans would have thot they were spy’s from the Goths and had them executed!
Haha!
The same world view that gold investors and crypto investors see the US empire...
Probably thought their empire was the Legitimate one (the east)
I think the eastern side sacrificed the Western Empire because they realized that they could not sustain it's size on the money and grain coming in and the entire population and the very reason why it split in half with the eastern side containing all of the big economic centers including Egypt, Antioch, and Constantinople and by getting rid of the east they no longer had to finance the entire western empire bc the western empire couldn't sustain itself with the minerals, grain, and economic conditions there and the east had to finance the west and therefore when it split the western empire no longer had the money or manpower for army's because of endless incursions from barbarians and so they had to give land to these barbarians and then that created even less taxes and so they had to give more land up and so on. The eastern empire rarely intervened on their behalf until it got to the point it was already too late. It was actually a smart move otherwise it would have been the entire empire and it's the ONLY reason it survived for another 1000 years. It must have sucked to be in Rome though
Roman culture and to a certain extent civic organization in western europe until the plague of justinian.
Indeed .. before AD 1453 .. did they even consider let alone admit that the Roman Empire had 'fallen'? Rome - Old Rome - had been besieged, taken, and gutted a few times between the consecration of Constantinople as 'an' imperial capital .. the only one that really mattered .. and New Rome's own falls (to the Venetian adventurers and finally the Turks)? As with the British Empire the Roman Imperium evaporated in parts, the latter over centuries and the former within a few decades; yet, as with Romanitas, there are still vast swathes of 'Britishness' sprawling along on their own historical paths ....
History can be informative - if we let it. Yey! ;o)
The evidence is clear that the cites had depopulated by the 4th century and were not rebounding. A deurbanized Western Empire would result in a new economic reality and in profound differences in social structure. The Western Empire had become less “civilized” without urban centers and was more “barbaric” and conducive to barbarian rule. Barbarian culture moved south from Germany and overtook the West. It was much more than military conquest. The West survived but was not the old urbanized Rome.
Paganism continued to decline as it was an urban religion that required temples, elaborate rituals, and wealthy patrons to fund the temples and rituals. Christianity, a more economical religion and a religion of the poor, continued its displacement of paganism.
The Western Empire demonetized after the 4th century. Coin usage drastically declined as did long distance trade.
I believe it was largely epidemiology that precipitated all this. Roman cities spread the pathogens that had moved into the Mediterranean from Asia.
Probably for the everyday normal nobody, life just went on like always.
Salvēte!
Roman was western
Greeks eastern byzantine
What are you trying to say ?
@goldenapple1754 the greeks control eastern roman
Originally greek then roman then greek
Till. 1453
It’s technically wrong saying that the eastern roman empire was ruled by Greeks because in some Regions of the balkans people were Latin speakers and not even called Greek the same goes for Egypt, Anatolia and the middle east.
A lot of Emperors weren’t even greek.
Thats just what bothers me by calling them just greeks
@goldenapple1754 my friend bout
greeks control the known world from 400 bc was ruled by greeks greek alfabet (your alfabet today is greek not roman)the Roman's came And becameGreco-Roman
Greeks wrote old testament new testament as you know it today
Roman collapse greek last till 1453
There was no fall, just no longer a need for a emperor in the west since germanic chieftains ruled yet administration still done by romans. The seat of the empire was in Constantinople from then on.
I guess sleep can wait
Well, fine, what else should I say.
How did they do it? How did they blow the surrender and cause 20 years of brutal warfare?
The Eastern Romans blew it by invading in the first place when they already had the Persians and Avars on their doorstep. Justinian was a great emperor in many respects, but his foreign policy was utterly moronic, sticking his fingers in too many pies and causing many headaches fro his successors.
@@septimiusseverus343 I meant more, how, when Belisarius had roll'd up the Vandalls, then the Ostrogoths, and had the last of them (goths) holed up in Ravenna, ready to surrender, how did they (Belisarius, Justinian, and the Eastern Romans in general), manage to start a 20 years long brutal war to the death which destroyed large swathes of Italia, and utterly ended any chance of actually putting the Empire back together again.
@@andreweaston1779 Because most of the Ostrogothic army mainly retreated to the North, the weak Ostrogothic leadership allowed for a quick Roman conquest of Italy despite their army still being mostly intact. After the Byzantians captured the Gothic King Vitiges, the Ostrogoths soon after would rally under the leadership of Totila, a leader who was more militarily capable than either Vitiges or Theodohad and he would proceed to take back most of Italy especially after Justinian neglected to pay his Italian troops leading them to desert their post and possibly even defect to Totila.
@@andreweaston1779 In reality it was Narses who deserves more credit for the Italian conquest as he was the one who crushed the Ostrogoths in 2 pitch battles, then proceeded to crush the Franks and Alemani troops that was invited into Italy by the desperate Ostrogoths. Justinian certainly didn't lack for quality generals, Belisarius conquered North Africa and Sicily, Narses conquered Italy, his loyal Babarbarian general Mundus conquered Illycrum at the cost of his and his son's life and Liberius who was 80+ year old at the time is credited for conquering southern Spain.
Same as facebook gangstalkers, I assume.
A Mah Video
You hammer Justinian pretty regularly for the Gothic wars. But is fighting to reclaim what was stolen from you, immoral or wrong? "A war that should have been over quickly dragged on for almost 30 more years" This lands at the feet of the invaders, not the Romans. It is not wrong to reclaim your home. You're applying your current values here to a vastly different society.
Justinian destroyed italy and its monuments for fleeting control
Actually the Greek speaking Senatorial Class had all left by that time as well as much of the Equestrians too. Please understand that the Romans were always Greek speakers and not Latin speakers even though many could speak Latin. Those Equestrians who had enough money ascended to the aristocracy by default. Thus, the powerful Greek speakers were absent, leaving the lower classes who spoke Latin like the northern invaders. Law, administration and trades as well as the army all spoke Latin but there were no Roman leaders!!!! Instead, the barbarians took their seats in the Senate masquerading as Romans.
Please stop with these bullsxhits
I am half Eastern Roman half Cuman, Romans were West Asians Anatolian Neolithic Farmers J2 haplogroup then they mixed it was all Europe inhabited by early European farmers meaning Anatolian Neolithic Farmers
There weren’t any Romans in Rome by 476. The Romans were all paganus living in the countryside.
when modern day liberals learn about rome
@Maiorianus_Sebastian Do you have an address to send fan mail or gifts?