Do you have anything about the development of the Roman Navy? I've always found it fascinating how quickly they went from barely floating to completely dominating centuries old naval power like Carthage.
@AlexNOSAM thats completely right tho it was germanic tribes first aaaand a little bit later germans, french or other modern Nations and by a little bit i mean a Long time
@AlexNOSAM but to as of so called pureness of various people you are completely right. For example during slavic invasion greeks in the European part were almost completely driven out by the slavs to small Land scraps and nearest islands - but greek culture in the slavic area won and in the end dominated the slavs Who moved there, so there are bunch of greeks that have slavic heritage, or another example - germanised poles, or polonised ruthenians, byelorussians, ukrainians, not to mention that anybody can have a pretty big mix of virtually any heritages. In my opinion it ridicules a person that says something in lines of preserving these pureness or being pure themselves (or something milder but in the end with similar meaning which is in my opinion the most encountered one, and it can be tricky) Studying history made me more aware of how "unpure" our bloolines are :D
@AlexNOSAM not that i am not tolerant or even curious of others views but im glad to see someone with similar thoughts. I mean maybe "edjucated, quality people" sounds a bit too narrow, or harsh? Not want to let unorganized swarms of people into Europe but these people are running mostly from wars so i think we shouldnt just take those priveleged enough to have education skills or money. But anyways i get what you mean, have a nice Day y'all history fans and any other folks🏛️⛪🕌🕍🕋⛩️
The Byzantines had their own Romanized "foederati" as well, they recruited Arabs, Seljuk mercernaries, Bulgars, Avars and Pechnegs and they held for another 1000 years.
Mercenaries always turn on their employers so it is very important to keep them in a significantly weaker position as many Empires have learnt at their cost
It could be argued that the foederati system actually prolonged the Roman Empire , it was designed for a reason, primarily because the old standing armys couldnt cope anymore due to the size of the borders and mass incursions along it. The old standing armys alone couldnt respond fast enough, they couldnt be everywhere at once and so the Romans needed a layered approach to defence , defence in depth. The foederati Ultimately did play a part in Western Roman Empires eventual collapse but i suspect that without the defence in depth they provided the Empire would of been overwhelmed much earlier.
robdee81 Wrll said! It is also at least arguable that if Romans hadn’t continued to treat “Barbarians” as second class citizens and often with harsh prejudice, they might of prolonged it even longer!
@@cyrilchui2811 The western empire in its latter stages was basically in a never-ending tailspin. There were always upticks, but by the last few centuries the best that could be dreamed was a holding of the line. Like art, civil policy also stagnated and declined.
@@EroticOnion23 They did with the Adrian Wall, LIME and so on. But they couldn't in European fronts with little natural barrier. Big Rivers were not much of a barrier.
I think this is a good point. As I understands it the Foederati's job was simply to defend key points and waled cities until a mobile imperial task could come in and actually defeat the invaders. And they did this really well for several centuries.
Foederati: The story of Rome on the back foot. Thanks K&G for highlighting this underreported aspect of Rome's long and grinding imperial retirement. Your continued hard work is noted and appreciated!
When Rome stopped being fought for by Romans. When the stable boy could murder the Emperor and become Emperor. When the Praetorians sold the Emperorship...when "being Emperor" was more important than "governing the Empire", THAT is what caused the downfall of Rome.
I dont know, that goes for almost all nations of that time. For most of the Roman Empire's existence it was like this. Even back in the republic it was so.
@@toedo9015 The throne of the emperor being sold or promoted by the whim of a couple legions was not par for the course until much later than the Republic. The late empire had an authority issue, where there were no checks and balances. This lead to devastating civil wars that cost money, resources, and man power. This is for sure a mid to late empire issue.
@@marcob1729 I was talking about corruption. The romans have almost always had corruption issues and abusable laws, sometimes even ignored by the senate. The shifts of the throne later on were a bigger issue, but I was talking about how Rome never really was about the people, but the leaders.
@@toedo9015 This. The Roman republic had atrocious corruption issues (with some obscenely wealthy upper classes being far more concerned with their own interests than that of the state) well before the Empire was formed.
That sounds epic But it’s the Dark Ages, not the Middle Ages which comes after Edit: Yeah so I found out that the “Dark Ages” is a historical periodisation that refers to the Middle Ages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
There was an enormous amount of acculturation both before and after the fall of Rome with many Germanic tribes such as the Goths, Franks, and Vandals had spent quite some time living within the Western Roman Empire before they took it over. When the Ostrogoths under their king Flavius Odoacer completed the conquest of Rome in 476, they kept the Senate in place, formally acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern Roman Empire, took on Latin names and Roman dress. One could consider the fall of Rome in the fifth century as more of a internal political coup rather than uncivilized barbarians breaching the walls of the eternal city and tearing down the Roman civilization.
i would say that roman cultural identity was slowly diluted, but even it is not a problem in itself - culture can mutate and change, the problem was that this change was pretty different in different parts of the empire. Eastern empire has mutated to be mostly greek in somewhat uniform manner thus it was culturally unified by this roman-hellenic identity.
Even the Visigoths in hispania was preserving Roman culture too. By the 6th and 7th century, they would even incorporate Byzantine like architecture, especially in their capital in Toledo. They basically were indistinguishable amongst the Hispano-Romans, mostly because they married them.
Rome's greatest strength was its ability to integrate outsiders. First the actual City of Rome integrated the other Latins, then the Republic integrated the Etruscans and Smanites. By Ceaser's time, southern Gauls from northern Italy were Romanized, and northern Gauls followed suit by the time of Clau-Clau-Claudius. That's to say nothing of Iberians, Greeks, Egyptians, and even some Jews, like Josiphus. At every step, the already Romanized sneered at the barbarian outsiders and insisted that they would never be fit to be Romans. Service within the Legions, or alongside them as allies, was often the quickest road to Romanization. The Italic allies may have lost the Social War, but it was their necessity to the Republic that gave their cities citizenship. Likewise, Alpine and Narbonensic Gauls made up a large part of Ceaser's army. The real question, it would seem, is why couldn't Rome assimilate these new groups, as it had the previous ones?
@@apotato6278 I would disagree, i think Rome would have collapsed in on itself, the Germanic people only officiated a collapse. To my understanding of the period Rome was a gilded apple, it seemed like the great Empire of antiquity but in truth it was decayed on the inside. Eastern Rome was lucky that she birthed a great emperor who was capable of improving her economy and military and rip his seat from obscurity however that did come with a cost as Northen people did end up conquering a huge swath of land from the empire but for a while Eastern Romans experienced quite a high for quite a while. But as explain in the previous videos by Kings and Generals, it wore itself down by constant border skirmishes from it's North and Eastern borders, in the end the Byzantine Empire was but a shell of its former self before the Ottomans conquered the rest of it's lands. Empires rise and fall, there is no way to really stop it be, an empire can't be an empire if it's not an empire.
The Antonine Plague is the likely culprit for most of the Empire's woes. It killed 10% - 15% of the population. This crippled both the economy and army. Imperial revenue was reduced by nearly 25% and the frontiers, due to the devastation suffered by the Legions, faced continual incursions. The shortage of manpower led to a need to find new sources, and so the ranks of the Legions began being increasingly supplemented by barbarian mercenaries. After nearly two generations of turmoil, the Crisis of the Third Century "began". Political instability rolled back the recovery of the Empire and cut a mortal wound into its heart. Mines could not operate and the silver coins where devalued. Inflation rocked the economy and armies, no longer receiving sufficient pay, proclaimed general after general the new Emperor and ground themselves down against eachother to see it done. I strongly doubt any of these things would have occurred without the devastation that the plague left in its wake.
Population loss, less tax base and fewer recruits (People were able to choose better jobs after the Black Death, too) Without opportunities for plundering new lands, lifetime soldiery would be a pretty low tier job Add crippling money debasement due to China only accepting payment in silver, so the coinage turned to shit, much farmland now belonging to the rich & worked by slaves, so far lower rural populations, weather changes pressuring huge population movements (well before the Huns showed up) and a far more powerful and aggressive neighbour in Sassanid Persia
Imperial Dovahkiin While definitely a huge blow to the empire it didn’t doom it to defeat. What destroyed the western empire was numerous civil wars from the 390s to the 430s and the shitty emperors known as Honorius and Valentinian III. If the empire had been able to avoid those wars and be lead by (at the least) competent emperors then it would’ve survived. Hell, Majorian could’ve saved the empire!
@@davethompson3326 The economic conditions wrought by a trading imbalance with China as you mentioned - along with massive inflation by certain emperors - I believe were the primary reasons for the collapse of the coinage in the empire.
I've been trying to do a video on the Foedarati for ages, trying to find info about their gear is so hard, as it varied throughout the entire empire. sigh.... eventually. Great artwork in this vid btw!
Hi mate, I've just finished up an essay at university on the military evolution in the age of Justinian. At least for this period, there's quite a lot of detailed content on the symmachoi and foederates. Hope this helps.
No one seriously claims that the barbarians were the only cause of the fall of the West. However, I would definitely say that they were ultimately the mechanism of the fall. Goths, Franks etc. saw the divided and weak state of Rome and pushed for greater power, as you would expect. The fact that barbarian magisti militum like Ricimer were able to hold the de facto rule of the West and others set up their own kingdoms in Roman territory really suggests that the collapse was not spontanious but brought about through barbarian agency. They were opportunistic and saw a vacuum left by disinterested and unsupported emperors and they rushed in to fill it.
I kind of feel like things may have lasted a little longer if they had just allowed Germans to become Emperors themselves (like basically every other "non Roman" Emperor had been allowed) rather than restricting their dejure power so much that it made more sense to become a King technically sworn to the Empire rather than just taking full power for themselves. (civil wars and usurpers are almost never the answer but they kind of are in this situation)
It's almost like a society that lacks cohesion, the availability of mass produced goods/services, and social unity is doomed to be taken over by the never ending tsunami of migrants, opportunists, and malicious operators. It's been the collapse of, oh I dunno, every civilization that doesn't get out right conquered by their neighbor.
@houdini2233 Societies are (were) built by slaves and trade. Don't sugar coat it. Yes, migration is not a bad thing a good example is given in the video. The people came into a sparsely populated part of the land, assimilated, and became tax paying citizens. What happens when there is no more land? What happens when the only jobs available are ones they don't want to do? What happens when they don't assimilate? You get civil unrest, you get disenfranchisement, you get the first step of an empire that lasted thousands of years falling. The tsunami never stops but the resources available to the empire eventually does.
I have always believed that the adoption of so many non-Native Troops was the core downfall of the Roman Empire. They weren't invested in the idea of the Empire. When Soldiers don't believe in what they are fighting for and fighting to defend, that's as bad as Defeat.
@@pokeman5000 The fault wasn't so much that of the migrants thought as of the huge overextended empire that collapsed under its own corruption and internal conflict
You guys should do some documentaries of the legacy of Rome like how the Visigoth kingdom carried on some traditions and how in Italy with Theodoric The Great created a golden age after Rome fell with a working senate and an effort to preserve Roman culture. Not to mention he was in practicality in all but name a Roman Emperor at his peek before he’s decline in his later years.
Pardon my ignorance, hehe, but how do you know if a video is demontized? And then, why would they demonetize a K&G video? Is there an offensive content?
The circumstances which led to the Battle of Adrianople were arguably the beginning of the end. The Romans now had to deal with vast amounts of their enemies within their own borders.
Been watching this channel since the early days and I gotta say thank you for all the hours of quality entertainment and learning you have provided for me!
EmperorJuliusCaesar no, they didn’t they gained control of Italy by forming tight alliances with the other people there after a war, idk where you’re getting this genocide stuff from
Gibbon’s “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, while seminal, is not considered authoritative today. He had enough axes to grind in that work that he could have outfitted a literary legion of foederati himself.
Yeah, somewhat disappointing they used it as a source, considering their previous involvement with AskHistorians subreddit (and those guys REALLY dislike Gibbon).
@@mich722 Highly recommended? Well, depends who you ask :P It does have certain literary value though. Very easy to read , both by scientist and layman alike.
@@Moravia300 I believe it's the best introduction, highly readable and entertaining, with so many interesting details and character descriptions as well.
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes lol hijacked the Romans...then the Saxons butcher the Roman Empire...in Roman Empire the Hellenic language was the second language..if u didn't know to speak Greeks u was barbarian back then,also Greeks spoke n latins
While I think Charlemagne was an accomplished man, I find it off putting to consider him a true roman emperor. Especially since the Pope though Irene not worthy to rule, by virtue of being a woman, despite ruling well over a decade as regent before taling the throne.
SyluxV 2 things I never said Charlemagne was a true roman emperor in the classical sense But he was ‘emperor of the Romans’ and he did rule a substantial Frankish empire that shared many cultural and social similarities with the late western Roman Empire Also Irene of Athens was a complete disaster of an empress who alienated the vast majority of the eastern roman military by blinding and murdering her own son after he started to claim power for his own (as was his right as he was now an adult and the official roman emperor) The argument that a woman can’t be roman emperor is obviously ridiculous but Irene was no ones choice for an empress and she began a trend for divisive and weak roman empresses
@@syluxv2398 I'd say at his time, there was probably nobody who could be more of a western roman Emperor than him. He was well educated, culturally very similar to a roman, catholic and last but not least: He was a strong military leader and the strongest military power in europe. Was he roman in a classical sense? No, but I think he was roman in a way of what the western rooman empire left us after its fall.
@@syluxv2398 When the Roman Emperor of the Eastern part can just go "Fuck you Augustulus you're not Western Emperor cause I said so" or "Hey Theodoricus go fuck up Italy and kill Odoacer the guy who I "appointed" to rule Italy and get the fuck out of here" the Pope claiming Irene not being worthy to rule is totally fair to be honest.
Actually the Ostrogoths that inherited Rome were very pro Roman and loved the existing late Roman system that they took up Vulgar Latin and built systems around Roman laws and Roman technologies. Their leader was Theodoric the great who by and large was trained and Romanized in Constantinople. Some of the architecture of the Ostrogoths like the Mausoleum of Theodoric and the Baptistry of San Vitale in Ravenna is a showcase of Ostrogothic late Roman style architecture. They learnt from Roman scholars and the courts is full of ex Romans. In fact the Ostrogothic Kings were all called King of the Romans as they wanted to be apart of them and become them. Military wise, by the 5th and 6th century AD, the style of combat was more or less quite similar between Goths and late Romans revolving around sheild walls, using Spatha like swords. The only difference is minimal which the Eastern Romans would use darts or javelins and spears like a lite phalanx style to take on large cavalry formations. A vast difference from the classical Roman armies that used Pilas as first contact javelins then the shorter gladius for stabbing through shield wall tactics.
I must admit, as much as I love Roman history, I am sympathetic to the Ostrogothic Kingdom. It could be argued that Justinian's invasion completely destroyed what was left of the Western Roman state. Despite the Ostrogoths being in control of the state and army, the actual day to day running of government was largely left to the local Roman Italians. The buildings were also being preserved and the Senate carried on. There was relative stability as well. And relationship between locals and rulers seems to have for the most part been good. The invasion caused many deaths, wars and instability for decades. I believe that eventually, the Ostrogoths would have blended in with the locals.
@@mich722 Yeah it was quite a shame that had happened to the Ostrogoths who by and large were awesome successors to Rome. Theodoric the Great was the inspirational leader that really brought the Gothic and the Roman systems together in harmony, him being a Roman at heart, tutored by the aristocracy in Constantinople. One can only dream as you say, of the possibilities of a revived Western Rome under Ostrogothic leadership. I would go so far as to say that the Romans and the Ostrogoths would have rebuilt the Western Roman Empire if Theodoric had the right successors. Justinian on the other hand was very fortunate to have a fantastic general in Belisarius, in whom he invested his resources to reclaim lost territories, taking full advantage of the death of Theodoric. In those early medieval or late antiquity period, warfare is a always considered by society to be a benchmark of the capabilities of a leader. They respect a martial leadership more than just status quo. Given the massive problems Justinian faced in the Nika riots and the plague, waging war to reclaim "lost" territories in North Africa and Italy was priority for him to showcase the success of his leadership on a grand scale. All Roman emperors thrive in conquests and the glory of Roman idealism is in winning great battles and bringing the spoils of war back to the capital. Hence, the Gothic war was more or less due as long as the excellent Theodoric was not amply replaced with another leader, as capable and as visionary. However we too cannot fault his successors as they did not have ample time to continue their nation building. For the Eastern Romans were another breed, highly ambitious, highly jealous with the famous "Byzantine" politics, they would strike at potential competitor neighbors given half a chance.
I can't for the life of me understand how your vidoes don't have more views? So interesting and good quality both information wise, topics and animations. It's very easy to follow even if english isn't my first language and the narrorators voice is southing and doesn't become annoying to listen to (even when you binge watch 14 videos in a row) Even if you don't get alot of views, know that the ones whom is watching, gravely appreciates this channel!
king and genrals is on other level to near all other history channel only armchair history is on his par this guy is amazing keep up the unreal awesome work
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes At the beginning they built a strong army that united the Italian peninsula, then when they annexed other regions they needed more manpower to fill the gap for this large empire. This is natural, every empire that expands it's borders will depend on other nations.
I find it extremely metal that the Goths didn't just rampage across the empire but also sacked Rome herself but when called on to help defend the empire, they came to honor their word. That's an oldschool style of honor, two millenia old honor.
As Rome, particularly in the late period, became more cash-strapped, the advantage of the barbarians was they were cheap: a few rights and privileges and a little piece of land. Rome under the Republic and early Rome as an Empire relied more upon citizens as soldiers. But there is another issue as to why Rome increasingly relied on barbarians. There was the question that the citizen armies were too loyal to their general and ended up making him emperor, a consideration later emperors took very seriously when raising a new citizen army. Another factor why Rome increasingly relied on barbarians has to do with Roman military organization. Rome was built around its infantry and they never developed good cavalry of their own. Barbarian forces, however, were adept at cavalry, as well as archery on horseback, in large numbers, leaving the Roman military system of infantry, used centuries ago, outdated in effectiveness. Yet another factor was that Rome’s civil wars between armies backing a particular general for emperor weakened the overall army of the empire, leaving its own military forces decimated. Thus, Roman armies relied upon barbarians to reconstitute their forces.
@@cosmopolitanbay9508 Also on top of that it became increasingly difficult to pull manpower away from the fields as landowners tried their hardest to keep the best workers for themselves.
People in general had less vitality and preferred the sensual and easy pleasures of a peaceful life to the hard dangerous life of a soldier, the population of the empire was massive and yet it struggled to find recruits and this is in contrast to the far smaller Republic, Caesar and Augustus actually thought the army was to big in their time. it's further supported that the numbers of recruiting declined more due to a "cultural decline" than merely an economic one by the fact that the largest recruiting ground's of the empire were the less civilized province's and amongst the more bellicose populations such as Gaul and Pannonia who had managed to maintain some of their Barbarian vitality and lust for battle Which the comfortable and pleasure seeking dopamine addicted Romans had lost.
@@MrAwrsomeness Easy life my ass - for 99% of Romans the 4th and 5th was anything but easy. And their "massive population" was of no use since the plague had decimated the cities and the few people left had to plow the fields to feed the rest. If you started conscripting people there wouldn't have been any more food. Besides, you can have all the militarist-macho culture in the world - you don't have money you don't have soldiers. Rome problems were not due to a "cultural decadence" or "loss of values" but due to the collapsing economy and quick depopulation.
@@fede98k54 These problems started before the plague, already during the pax romana Italy and the Mediterranean had already ceased to be a recruiting ground despite being far more populous and economically viable than Gaul Pannonia ect By your own logic Italy Egypt Greece Syria should have been the main recruiting ground due to population and economy but they weren't and contrary to your theory The Balkans which was routinely devastated invaded economically destitute remained for centuries one of the main recruiting grounds of the empire and was renown for producing excellent soldiers, how does that fit in with your economic model of decline? it doesn't .
@@MrAwrsomeness It does - the Romans prefered to recruit farmers into the army rather than townsfolk (due to the ridicoulous notion that good farmers were good soldiers, a stupid tradition they inherited from the Republic). Of course this favored the less urbanized provinces but even this became increasingly difficult after the Antonine plague around 180 A.D. - long before the supposed decline of the empire. And with the depopulation of the empire it became impossible to conscript in the same way as before. Furthermore, continuing with the economic argument, already as early as the reign of Trajan the Romans were forced to begin debasing the currency to afford their armies and this was a slow poison which destroyed the empire. It was the reason the Roman army become ever more loyal to their generals rather than the Emperor who couldn't afford the exorbitant prices of their loyalty. When the Roman treasury became so destitute that it was cheaper to contract mercenaries than mobilizing the ever dimishing tax base - that was when the fall of Western Empire became inevitable. Economics are the lifeblood of empires and when one falls it's economy had declined for much longer. But no, I'm sure it was the cultural decadence of Rome that made it collapse - the easy life of the average roman serf living among the pleasures of the vast depopulated fields and not something as nuanced and complex as economics. I can however imagine which parallels to the modern world can someone draw with such ideas. Anyway I do not intend to continue this discussion as I did not intend to begin one in the first place - I only found it ridicoulous calling the life of the average Roman then easy or plaesant, as if they were at fault for the decline of their nation, as if they had the power to do anything to fix it. Have a good day Sir.
I always think the book "Why nations fail" gives the best answer to why Rome eventually fell and the finger can be pointed at the increasingly self serving elite class. Over time the economy is made to serve the rich and consolidate their power and things just slowly fall apart. Needed reforms were never made and because the internal economy was stagnant expansion was the only way to grow the economy bringing its own problems. I would love to see a video focusing on that.
Yeah, they seem to use total war music and footage in a lot of their videos. I found that they're using it according to the period covered too, if it's Roman history they'll use music from Rome 2, if it's in the 18th century they'll use music from empire and so on
@@stygian8049 More like asbestos. He tries to paint his obscure and false worldview over history. Not is he viewing, reading and understanding history and then building his world view or meaningful understanding but the other way around. That's highly ideological and testifies historical ignorance.
@Deus Ex As a Northern European i'll tell you right here and now that we're the ones that ultimately ruined it. Middle Easterners and North Africans were basically what kept the empire afloat. Without Egypt, Tunis, Syria and Anatolia the empire would never have lasted as long as it did. Don't force modern xenophobia on ancient Rome.
It seems to me that the Foederati system was a powerful tool that needed to be managed carefully. Like a fire like that either warms a home or burns it down. The real problem is that the Roman power structure was so prone to civil war that it simply brought out the worst of the Foederati system.
They should have been distributed across the regular units under Roman officers and oversight. Not allowed to be controlled by warlords given Roman titles who still controlled their own personal armies.
@@mich722 bold of you to assume that the barbarians would agree to that. Remember that barbarian conferacies grew over time which in turn increased their bargaining power.
It wasn’t the use of “barbarian” troops alone that ended the western empire. Afterall the eastern empire used Germanic and Hunnish troops as well. And would always use “foreign” troops to some degree. The real issue was the unstable situation in the west. Continuous civil wars eroded the west’s military strength, while weak emperors allowed the empire to rapidly decline. And when competent emperors arose they got stabbed in the back. Despite this I think there’s a case to be made that even near the damn end the empire could’ve been saved. Majorian was able to reconquest much of the west with what few romans remained, supplemented by miscellaneous german and hunnic mercenaries. If it weren’t for a sneak attack/betrayal of his fleet he would’ve retaken Africa and might have been able to truly reforge the empire.
this is what you get when you relie on barabrians ! a roman army would never cause the very end of the empire they might seek money change emperors but never to that that point !
raouf duc Well romans had been using foreigners for their entire existence. Be they foedi or auxiliary. Using them wasn’t an issue. And rebellious Romans are very much the reason why we got to this point. It was the greedy and disloyal Romans who caused the numerous civil wars and rebellions that allowed the western empire to grow so weak that it couldn’t properly respond to exponentially growing threat of the Germans.
raouf duc What do you mean by “restore the empire”? Half the empire survived, only falling in 1453. And several attempts were made to restore the western half. The first time was by the Emperor Majorian. When he came to power he only had Italy and northern Gaul. He got Dalmatia to peacefully return (it had revolted after the death of Aetius) and went on the campaign. He defeated the Burgundians, Visigoths, and Suebi. He was going to retake africa (needed for Rome’s survival) and would’ve won if not for a betrayal/sneak attack. After that his reconquests were lost again. Next up was Anthemius. He also tried to retake Africa and other lands but was met with catastrophe and was also killed off later on. Finally we have Justinian. The most successful of the attempts to restore the western half. He retook North Africa, Illyria, parts of Spain, and Italy. But Italy was devastated in a needlessly drawn out war. And lost much of it to lombards in the decades after his death. In my opinion Majorian was the best option.
@@raoufduc1441 Besides Imperialx's points on the Eastern half of the empire, there was also that the Papacy had actually named Charlemagne as legal successor to Emperor Julius Nepos, and the Holy Roman Empire would continue to use the 'Imperator Romanorum' title till 1806 when it was dissolved. So the Roman Empire in the West would technically be the Holy Roman Empire after 800.
There is a lot of debate about the fall of Rome but I can't help feel that the same thing happened to them which happened to almost every other great state that fell, that of becoming complacent. The people and families that ruled these great states for so long have become so used to being at the top they fail to carry on the legacy of their forefathers. Rome's great attitude to administration and army quality was eroded not by barbarians, who were generally good soldiers, but by the fact that the people of the late empire had simply grown fat and focusing on the things that were byproducts of greatness, culture and architecture and forgetting the things that make states great, stability and good governance. Instead even while their empire fell the western emperors sat in Ravenna holding feasts pretending that they were still the masters of the world. We saw this in other empire's as well. The russian czars constantly refusing reform in face of revolution or the king's of europe before WW1 allowing the continent to creep towards war because they didn't have the talent of the people before them like Bismarck who would have actually taken action. Complacency from within is the downfall of all the greatest civilisations. We are still seeing it now with the fall in influence of the USA but we'll have to see if it can pull itself back from decline.
I think the alleged need of importing migrants into an empire is already signalling that it started to rot from within. Because if everything worked so great it would also be able to produce enough new population from its existing citizenbase.
@@borisan5048 Except the inclusion of migrants had going since the days of the Roman Kingdom before the Republic. Mind you, back then not everyone in Italy was Roman, but were their own independent city states that Rome either conquered or assimilated.
@@borisan5048 I think that migration into the empire wasn't so much a big deal as being able to assimilate those migrants. Rome was after all an empire of countless languages and cultures. Roman Egypt was completely different than Roman Britain in almost every way excpet for the idea of being 'Roman'. The idea of being a citizen was an aspiration for many because the empire was so powerful and ingratiating yourself with it just made sense. As soon as Rome stopped expanding it forgot how to integrate different cultures and make them get along with the overriding idea of being roman keeping everyone together. That's what made it hard to integrate the goths who dealt the hardest blow to the empire. It's the same with the USA, america was at it's most powerful when it welcomed many people but made the idea of being an american something that united the country behind certain things like freedom and equality which produced a strong unified nation.
@@Rumborumbo87 Not to tread on the rosy view of history, but the US has struggled with anti immigrant views for well over 150 years at this point; the country has never been particularly united beyond outside threats. Historically, the idea of being 'American' seems more to be the ability to argue about everything and still be a nation.
At the battle of Strasbourg in 357 A.D. the imperial Clibanarii were routed by the Alemmani and it was the mostly Germanic infantry (in the Roman army) that held the battle line and saved the army from annihilation.
Love it when people try to claim that a multi-ethnic polity like the Roman Empire was somehow brought down by foreigners. The Romans were victims of their own success and buckled under the weight of being overstretched, exhausted from civil wars, and poor management. Thank you Kings and Generals for the excellent video
@Mazhar Imam the Germans were going to invade whether the Romans let them in or not, hiring Germans to fight off other Germans was a good strategy and likely slowed the Empire's ultimate collapse
Yes, he did. He is quite scathing on some of the actions of the Christians, especially the destruction of monuments, temples and ancient statues because they were considered to represent 'demons'. Even the statue of Victory was removed from the Senate in Rome and Gibbon also comments on the irony of this. And also all the time wasted on useless metaphysical debate instead of putting that focus on fighting their enemies.
@@christianarchambault6111 The 'humanitarian' view on allowing the Goths to enter the empire has been blamed on that. The soldiers were furious, they wanted to cut down anyone who crossed the river. The upper-classes and Senators were however talking about saving fellow human-beings. Now, the Roman Empire would have large amounts of enemies settling and raiding within their own borders.
4:20 Holy Fuck, here I am, having had an online class about the Ptolemies (?) today and my professor haunts me all the way to K&G. 😂 I never even thought about the fact that some of my profs even to be somewhat famous.
Fun fact: the myth about the Roman army's "barbarization" started in the 19th century. As nationalistic fervour swept through Europe, the idea that Roman legions could employ non-Romans in their ranks was quite ... uncomfortable, to say the least (Roman culture still had quite some weight). Thus, the myth of Roman military decline due to the employment of barbarians begun, when in reality, those barbarians would fight with no less distinction than their Roman counterparts. For further informations, I suggest the works of Alessandro Barbero, Italian professor of Medieval and Military History. His lectures on the subject are fascinating.
Even if they didn't kill the Empire, there's an important lesson: Pay and respect your mercenaries, because sooner or later, the unpaid mercenaries will realize they have swords and you don't.
@@willphoenix5464 Yeah, the Iberians started revolting against carthage under the protection of Rome, however the celts in iberia as well as Celt Iberians were a lot more trouble to deal with, especially since they were frequently raiding Iberians and Romans alike, not to mention that the entire central and northwest peninsula was settled with petty kingdoms.
One specific point: While Roman treaties were held to be between peoples (i.e, between the Romans and the Visigoths), Germanic culture viewed treaties as between individuals (i.e, Alaric and Theodosius). When Theodosius died, Alaric was free to "renegotiate" the terms of the treaty from a Gothic perspective. The Romans ascribed this to "barbarian treachery", but, despite these sorts of problems occurring again and again, it seems they never got a clue.
Gibbon was a great historian, BUT his approach to history, IMO, is shallow and outdated. I have read him his book. He does not go into the demographic and social changes that occurred in the Roman Empire. As I see it, as Rome established its Empire after the Punic Wars. The rich started acquiring the Roman farms, creating large estates manned by slaves. Not only did this swell the population of Rome, but it also started dropping the fecundity of the Roman people. That lack of demographic power is what caused the eventual decline of Rome. Rome had to rely too much on outside help to keep the Empire together. For me, the big question is why couldn't (or didn't) Rome apply the same policies to conquered people outside of Italy, as it applied to the conquered tribes in Italy. In Italy, some cities and groups were able to become Roman citizens. What would have happened if the people in Gaul, Iberia, Greece, etc saw themselves as full Roman citizens? Something close to the modern state could have been created, with nationalism, not tribalism, being the great unifier. Then, would the Empire have fallen apart under the barbarian invasions of the 5th century?? I wonder.
Alaric and Stilicho were best friends and comrades, one of the main reasons that Alaric revolted was that he wanted to become magister militum of Illyria.
As a scolar of that particular eriod, this video is ok but, as any youtube production, it stays a little bit to much on the surface. It is important to study not only the dynamics at the frontier with the barbarians, but also what was going on in the central empire. All in all, most archeologist and historian in acadmia today agree that Rome could have levied armies far larger than any barbarian group could at that time. However, the main problem was the internal wars of Rome. Each time an usurpator rose in this time period, he was a general on one of Rome frontier. When rising and marching to make his claim, he would leave that aprt of the frontier undergarded, leaving place to barbarian incursions. It would afterward take lots of effort for Rome to reassert its dominance in the region. The dynamic was thus that Rome was weakening itself. I don't want to do a full thesis here but I recommand for better understanding of those subject: Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migration and the Romane West : 376-568. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2007. Michael Kulikowski, "The Western Kingdoms" in The Oxford handbook of Late Antiquity, 2012. Their works are very basis for this subject mater and should be among the reads anyone with an interest in the fading away of the Western Roman Empire should read.
I don't know if this will interest anyone, but in France we still use the name of the Roman province "Gaul" sometimes when referring to French people (Gauls, or "gaulois" in French). Also, I live in France, but on the border with Germany, and there the people speak a German dialect that they call "francique", (like the Franks), and a lot of them have been Latinized through history, and today their villages have French names with Frankish origin. Sadly the Frank's dialect is dying, both in France and in Germany.
@@AndrewTheMandrew531 People are the bedrock of a Empire and Rome cared less and less for its people, why do you think it was ripped apart by those who knew how to get peoples trust
@@AndrewTheMandrew531 FoReIgNeRs The mighty Roman empire would never collapse just because of mass immigration. You are those type of people that never looked to yourself when analyzing what went wrong. Let's just forget the fact that the Roman economy stagnated due to countless civil war.
The Abyss Watchers Another edgelord comes to rain on everyone’s parade- What about the countless Civil Wars that raged during the Third Century? If that isn’t enough to dissuade someone’s faith in an institution I don’t know what would.
@Fiasco And ? Rome was powerful enough to keep it under control, if only they didn't have countless civil war that stagnated their economy and weakened their army.
"As with many people, we were using outdated wallets designed in the 90s. We moved away from large flip phones to smartphones, but why did our wallets never get the upgrade we deserve?" The bifold wallet was made in the 50s and was never upgraded because it's not a phone! You don't need a steel and carbon fiber wallet to protect your credit cards. Ridge products are overpriced garbage. Phone cases that don't protect the screen for $50. Generic nylon bags with the Ridge logo slapped on them for $100+. A titanium bottle opener for $35.
As always great video. Don't know what we would have passed our time in qurantine without kings and general. Waiting for next episode from #Ottomanwars.
It's easy to fall for the trap that there was one singular reason for it's fall. There were many! Major events and turning points in history are usually complex situations with many underlying causes.
They ended it themselves mostly, due to selfishness , big ego's and paranoia. Their broken system destroyed them from inside out, once it's divided Rome becomes vulnerable. Instead of doing what was best for Rome, they did what was best for their individual selves, even if it meant it would damage Rome. They killed and betrayed the people who brought Rome to its peak, only to have power, attention, woman and do whatever u want without consequences until the paranoia came and someone else betrayed and killed.
@Marcelo Henrique Soares da Silva Exactly but when Rome became superior, it fell apart from the inside cause all the rich want to rule a all ready baked cake that ruled. People that had no business leading army's did so to have a good story if they won and got something done back in Rome. They made war on all sides like Hitler and lost.
Good video as always. There is a small problem, none all the franks were loyal to Rome. The Salian Franks (actual Belgium and northern Gallia) led by kings like Childeric were loyal to Rome. Childeric himself was very fond of roman culture and language. The Ripuarian Franks (Franconnia) however were not, an often attacked roman borders. The are several entities of franks not only one. For example Salian fought with Aetius against Attila ad the Ripuarian fought with the latter against Aetius. But as I said good video as always.
The Franks were seriously some of the fiercest and loyal soldier in the imperial army. In the Battle of Argentoratum. The Franks serving in Cornuti Seniores and Brachiati held their ground firmly against overwhelming number of Aleman horsemen until Roman cavalry began rallying again. Their commander also died in action. But their action helped saving Romans right flank.
In my honest opinion the two biggest reasons for the fall of Western Rome were the plagues that ravaged the lands of Europe. Secondly, the food shortage in Western Rome. The western Roman empire got cut off Alexandria (The granery of the Empire at that time). Which saw a decline in food. Add the plagues and you got yourself an injured lion fighting to hold on to an empire too big and complicated for it's own good.
The fact that the Like to Dislike ratio on this video (and many other K&G videos as well) is 76:1 demonstrates the sheer awesomeness of these videos! Keep up the content!
Could anyone recommend a channel like this but focused more on law and administration? I'm interested to know about the finances, tax collection, budgeting, public works, trade, ect.
@@ariyoiansky291 thanks. I'm already subscribed. I wonder if there's a series that goes into details into about the structure of social institutions, day to day life of a public servant/lawyer/record keeper/merchant/accountant. There seems to always be a greater focus of war and conquest and less on administration. Great empires are won through conquest but maintained through good administrations. How did; the East India Company manage their books, the Chinese structure their bureaucracies, the Inca monitor food production? How was; the library of Alexandria managed, Venetian banks structured?
Truth is the strategy of letting barbarians within the Empire in exchange for protection would've worked, if not for the Empire's refusal to keep their promises.
Great video! Please please please, make a series on the "Migration Era", it is really one of those transition times that people forget and that in general, we could learn a lot from this amazing channel! Thank you
The use of auxiliary such as the Goth in later days, and using them as fodder, and then later restricting their land usage was mistake. One teaching them in Roman tactics was a bad move
Not sure if Rome had a choice, their own manpower on the field was lacking. I'd say it's a little like being snowed in and being forced to take apart your house piece by piece to burn to stave off freezing to death. Eventually, Rome couldn't negotiate from a position of strength.
Did you guys use a modern map? The Netherlands on the map u guys picked shows Flevoland, a province that we created from the sea in the 20th century hahaha
![เปิดบ้าน พี่ตูน Bodyslam หลังใหม่คนแรก ที่ภูเก็ต l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/flFwcmyDQSk/mqdefault.jpg)
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | อาจารย์โอเล่ ญาณสัมผัส ผ่าดวงคนดัง ประเทศไทยจะเป็นยังไงหลังจากนี้!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gszT2O76fL4/mqdefault.jpg)
Shoutout to Ridge for sending us their wallet and supporting the channel! Here’s their website, check it out ridge.com/KINGSANDGENERALS
Do you have anything about the development of the Roman Navy? I've always found it fascinating how quickly they went from barely floating to completely dominating centuries old naval power like Carthage.
@@meduseldtales3383 Not yet, but we are planning an episode or two
Oh Romans, so great.
Make one about the battle of Karansebes.
ridge link is broken
Back when the Italians were too bureaucratic for the Germans.
@Hoàng Nguyên How the turntables!
@AlexNOSAM thats completely right tho it was germanic tribes first aaaand a little bit later germans, french or other modern Nations and by a little bit i mean a Long time
@AlexNOSAM but to as of so called pureness of various people you are completely right. For example during slavic invasion greeks in the European part were almost completely driven out by the slavs to small Land scraps and nearest islands - but greek culture in the slavic area won and in the end dominated the slavs Who moved there, so there are bunch of greeks that have slavic heritage, or another example - germanised poles, or polonised ruthenians, byelorussians, ukrainians, not to mention that anybody can have a pretty big mix of virtually any heritages.
In my opinion it ridicules a person that says something in lines of preserving these pureness or being pure themselves (or something milder but in the end with similar meaning which is in my opinion the most encountered one, and it can be tricky)
Studying history made me more aware of how "unpure" our bloolines are :D
@AlexNOSAM not that i am not tolerant or even curious of others views but im glad to see someone with similar thoughts. I mean maybe "edjucated, quality people" sounds a bit too narrow, or harsh? Not want to let unorganized swarms of people into Europe but these people are running mostly from wars so i think we shouldnt just take those priveleged enough to have education skills or money. But anyways i get what you mean, have a nice Day y'all history fans and any other folks🏛️⛪🕌🕍🕋⛩️
Exactly when the Italians stop to be too bureaucratic?
"Our series on the Roman armies will continue all the way up to 1453", this always brings a little tear of joy to my eyes :')
After a brief pause :-)
CAESAR COME BACK!!!
@@scienceinsociety3099 Ceasar, Constantine, Augustus, Aurelian, Stilicho, Etius, Basil II, and many other great men...
Brings a year of sorrow to mine :(
Believe it or not, but the Roman Empire didn’t finally perish in 1453
The Byzantines had their own Romanized "foederati" as well, they recruited Arabs, Seljuk mercernaries, Bulgars, Avars and Pechnegs and they held for another 1000 years.
And Varangians of course.
@Donald Trump Varangian guards were literally the elite forces.
In certain battles only, not constantly.
@jhon carry take a look at
V. Vasilief A brief history of the Byzantine Empire
Mercenaries always turn on their employers so it is very important to keep them in a significantly weaker position as many Empires have learnt at their cost
It could be argued that the foederati system actually prolonged the Roman Empire , it was designed for a reason, primarily because the old standing armys couldnt cope anymore due to the size of the borders and mass incursions along it. The old standing armys alone couldnt respond fast enough, they couldnt be everywhere at once and so the Romans needed a layered approach to defence , defence in depth. The foederati Ultimately did play a part in Western Roman Empires eventual collapse but i suspect that without the defence in depth they provided the Empire would of been overwhelmed much earlier.
robdee81 Wrll said! It is also at least arguable that if Romans hadn’t continued to treat “Barbarians” as second class citizens and often with harsh prejudice, they might of prolonged it even longer!
The Plague had something to do with fall in eligible Citizen. But then it was only Emergency, what happened thereafter for the next Century?
@@cyrilchui2811 The western empire in its latter stages was basically in a never-ending tailspin. There were always upticks, but by the last few centuries the best that could be dreamed was a holding of the line. Like art, civil policy also stagnated and declined.
@@EroticOnion23 They did with the Adrian Wall, LIME and so on. But they couldn't in European fronts with little natural barrier. Big Rivers were not much of a barrier.
I think this is a good point. As I understands it the Foederati's job was simply to defend key points and waled cities until a mobile imperial task could come in and actually defeat the invaders. And they did this really well for several centuries.
Foederati: The story of Rome on the back foot. Thanks K&G for highlighting this underreported aspect of Rome's long and grinding imperial retirement. Your continued hard work is noted and appreciated!
Aye.
@GoodGirlKate and why did youtube demonetize it?
@@aggelos8256 cause its run by snowflake zealots?
The video is not demonetized
@@KingsandGenerals good news good news.. Keep up the good work, you guys are the best history Channel on TH-cam
When Rome stopped being fought for by Romans. When the stable boy could murder the Emperor and become Emperor. When the Praetorians sold the Emperorship...when "being Emperor" was more important than "governing the Empire", THAT is what caused the downfall of Rome.
I dont know, that goes for almost all nations of that time. For most of the Roman Empire's existence it was like this. Even back in the republic it was so.
It was mainly a degradation of ethics and values and hyperinflation of the economy. You can't defend an empire if you can't pay your army.
@@toedo9015 The throne of the emperor being sold or promoted by the whim of a couple legions was not par for the course until much later than the Republic. The late empire had an authority issue, where there were no checks and balances. This lead to devastating civil wars that cost money, resources, and man power. This is for sure a mid to late empire issue.
@@marcob1729 I was talking about corruption. The romans have almost always had corruption issues and abusable laws, sometimes even ignored by the senate. The shifts of the throne later on were a bigger issue, but I was talking about how Rome never really was about the people, but the leaders.
@@toedo9015 This. The Roman republic had atrocious corruption issues (with some obscenely wealthy upper classes being far more concerned with their own interests than that of the state) well before the Empire was formed.
"The Western Roman Empire has fallen. Begun the Middle Ages have."
"The Emperor will decide your fate."
Uh, no. First the Dark Ages, then comes the Middle Ages. Then the Renaissance, Age of Discovery, The Enlightenment, etc.
That sounds epic
But it’s the Dark Ages, not the Middle Ages which comes after
Edit: Yeah so I found out that the “Dark Ages” is a historical periodisation that refers to the Middle Ages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
Diocletian: I am the senate!
@@craigkdillon the dark ages is what academia calls the early medieval period... Its the first 3rd of the middleages
There was an enormous amount of acculturation both before and after the fall of Rome with many Germanic tribes such as the Goths, Franks, and Vandals had spent quite some time living within the Western Roman Empire before they took it over. When the Ostrogoths under their king Flavius Odoacer completed the conquest of Rome in 476, they kept the Senate in place, formally acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern Roman Empire, took on Latin names and Roman dress. One could consider the fall of Rome in the fifth century as more of a internal political coup rather than uncivilized barbarians breaching the walls of the eternal city and tearing down the Roman civilization.
i would say that roman cultural identity was slowly diluted, but even it is not a problem in itself - culture can mutate and change, the problem was that this change was pretty different in different parts of the empire. Eastern empire has mutated to be mostly greek in somewhat uniform manner thus it was culturally unified by this roman-hellenic identity.
Odoacer wasn't ostrogoth, he was a Heruli
Even the Visigoths in hispania was preserving Roman culture too. By the 6th and 7th century, they would even incorporate Byzantine like architecture, especially in their capital in Toledo. They basically were indistinguishable amongst the Hispano-Romans, mostly because they married them.
Rome's greatest strength was its ability to integrate outsiders. First the actual City of Rome integrated the other Latins, then the Republic integrated the Etruscans and Smanites. By Ceaser's time, southern Gauls from northern Italy were Romanized, and northern Gauls followed suit by the time of Clau-Clau-Claudius. That's to say nothing of Iberians, Greeks, Egyptians, and even some Jews, like Josiphus. At every step, the already Romanized sneered at the barbarian outsiders and insisted that they would never be fit to be Romans.
Service within the Legions, or alongside them as allies, was often the quickest road to Romanization. The Italic allies may have lost the Social War, but it was their necessity to the Republic that gave their cities citizenship. Likewise, Alpine and Narbonensic Gauls made up a large part of Ceaser's army.
The real question, it would seem, is why couldn't Rome assimilate these new groups, as it had the previous ones?
@@pipebomber04 Spaniards? I believe you mean Iberian or Hispanic. Spaniards didn't exist yet.
As long as you weren't a samnite haha
You have a really good point. If Rome had properly integrated the Germanic tribes Europe might've looked very different.
@@apotato6278 I would disagree, i think Rome would have collapsed in on itself, the Germanic people only officiated a collapse. To my understanding of the period Rome was a gilded apple, it seemed like the great Empire of antiquity but in truth it was decayed on the inside. Eastern Rome was lucky that she birthed a great emperor who was capable of improving her economy and military and rip his seat from obscurity however that did come with a cost as Northen people did end up conquering a huge swath of land from the empire but for a while Eastern Romans experienced quite a high for quite a while. But as explain in the previous videos by Kings and Generals, it wore itself down by constant border skirmishes from it's North and Eastern borders, in the end the Byzantine Empire was but a shell of its former self before the Ottomans conquered the rest of it's lands. Empires rise and fall, there is no way to really stop it be, an empire can't be an empire if it's not an empire.
Samnites were genocided by Rome dude.
The Antonine Plague is the likely culprit for most of the Empire's woes. It killed 10% - 15% of the population. This crippled both the economy and army. Imperial revenue was reduced by nearly 25% and the frontiers, due to the devastation suffered by the Legions, faced continual incursions. The shortage of manpower led to a need to find new sources, and so the ranks of the Legions began being increasingly supplemented by barbarian mercenaries. After nearly two generations of turmoil, the Crisis of the Third Century "began". Political instability rolled back the recovery of the Empire and cut a mortal wound into its heart. Mines could not operate and the silver coins where devalued. Inflation rocked the economy and armies, no longer receiving sufficient pay, proclaimed general after general the new Emperor and ground themselves down against eachother to see it done. I strongly doubt any of these things would have occurred without the devastation that the plague left in its wake.
Population loss, less tax base and fewer recruits (People were able to choose better jobs after the Black Death, too) Without opportunities for plundering new lands, lifetime soldiery would be a pretty low tier job
Add crippling money debasement due to China only accepting payment in silver, so the coinage turned to shit, much farmland now belonging to the rich & worked by slaves, so far lower rural populations, weather changes pressuring huge population movements (well before the Huns showed up) and a far more powerful and aggressive neighbour in Sassanid Persia
Imperial Dovahkiin While definitely a huge blow to the empire it didn’t doom it to defeat. What destroyed the western empire was numerous civil wars from the 390s to the 430s and the shitty emperors known as Honorius and Valentinian III. If the empire had been able to avoid those wars and be lead by (at the least) competent emperors then it would’ve survived. Hell, Majorian could’ve saved the empire!
@@davethompson3326 The economic conditions wrought by a trading imbalance with China as you mentioned - along with massive inflation by certain emperors - I believe were the primary reasons for the collapse of the coinage in the empire.
Was it caused by 5G?
Excellent comment
I've been trying to do a video on the Foedarati for ages, trying to find info about their gear is so hard, as it varied throughout the entire empire. sigh.... eventually. Great artwork in this vid btw!
Hello sire
Hi mate, I've just finished up an essay at university on the military evolution in the age of Justinian. At least for this period, there's quite a lot of detailed content on the symmachoi and foederates. Hope this helps.
@@AstuteEnglishman hey mate any suggestions?
@@AstuteEnglishman what do you study?
@@alexvlaxos6620 Ancient History mate
The Frank's first enemy, then friend, and finally successor. They were just anime protagonists before that was a cliche.😂
4:06, that sihlouette took the knife like a champ.
No one seriously claims that the barbarians were the only cause of the fall of the West. However, I would definitely say that they were ultimately the mechanism of the fall. Goths, Franks etc. saw the divided and weak state of Rome and pushed for greater power, as you would expect. The fact that barbarian magisti militum like Ricimer were able to hold the de facto rule of the West and others set up their own kingdoms in Roman territory really suggests that the collapse was not spontanious but brought about through barbarian agency. They were opportunistic and saw a vacuum left by disinterested and unsupported emperors and they rushed in to fill it.
I kind of feel like things may have lasted a little longer if they had just allowed Germans to become Emperors themselves (like basically every other "non Roman" Emperor had been allowed) rather than restricting their dejure power so much that it made more sense to become a King technically sworn to the Empire rather than just taking full power for themselves. (civil wars and usurpers are almost never the answer but they kind of are in this situation)
It's almost like a society that lacks cohesion, the availability of mass produced goods/services, and social unity is doomed to be taken over by the never ending tsunami of migrants, opportunists, and malicious operators. It's been the collapse of, oh I dunno, every civilization that doesn't get out right conquered by their neighbor.
@houdini2233 Societies are (were) built by slaves and trade. Don't sugar coat it. Yes, migration is not a bad thing a good example is given in the video. The people came into a sparsely populated part of the land, assimilated, and became tax paying citizens.
What happens when there is no more land? What happens when the only jobs available are ones they don't want to do? What happens when they don't assimilate? You get civil unrest, you get disenfranchisement, you get the first step of an empire that lasted thousands of years falling. The tsunami never stops but the resources available to the empire eventually does.
I have always believed that the adoption of so many non-Native Troops was the core downfall of the Roman Empire. They weren't invested in the idea of the Empire. When Soldiers don't believe in what they are fighting for and fighting to defend, that's as bad as Defeat.
@@pokeman5000 The fault wasn't so much that of the migrants thought as of the huge overextended empire that collapsed under its own corruption and internal conflict
Last time I was so early, Romulus and Remus were starting a very ambitious arts and crafts project
lol
You guys should do some documentaries of the legacy of Rome like how the Visigoth kingdom carried on some traditions and how in Italy with Theodoric The Great created a golden age after Rome fell with a working senate and an effort to preserve Roman culture. Not to mention he was in practicality in all but name a Roman Emperor at his peek before he’s decline in his later years.
FUBLIUS DABLO- I wrote a whole paragraph praising oderaceker for being like him on a smaller scale and realized,oh TEOFERIX
Very good vid, made my day!
Could you one time do a short summary of the Eastern Roman Empire from 395 to 1453?
Thanks for the quality content
Sad to see how mercilessly TH-cam demontises your videos
But again for every Video great work and for Officially Devin for narrating it Good Job
Pardon my ignorance, hehe, but how do you know if a video is demontized? And then, why would they demonetize a K&G video? Is there an offensive content?
This one is not demonetized
@@KingsandGenerals Thanks K&G. I really appreciate the replies. 💕
@@KingsandGenerals Well you earned it
@@alsiyonealternate TH-cam demontises alot of History channels bc ad reasons but K&G said this one isnt surprise to me
The circumstances which led to the Battle of Adrianople were arguably the beginning of the end. The Romans now had to deal with vast amounts of their enemies within their own borders.
Been watching this channel since the early days and I gotta say thank you for all the hours of quality entertainment and learning you have provided for me!
No one:
Rome and the Jin dynasty: Hiring barbarian mercenaries is a good idea
Also Cartaghe or Cartago.
@EmperorJuliusCaesar Uhhh can you elaborate? What empire? The USA?
@EmperorJuliusCaesar Because Rome is long gone
Mazhar Imam the Han one
EmperorJuliusCaesar no, they didn’t they gained control of Italy by forming tight alliances with the other people there after a war, idk where you’re getting this genocide stuff from
Just love you guys. Thank you for all you do! And the narrator is just amazing!
He is :-)
Gibbon’s “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, while seminal, is not considered authoritative today. He had enough axes to grind in that work that he could have outfitted a literary legion of foederati himself.
To be fair, are any 244 year old history books considered authoritative? It was first published in the same year as the US Declaration of Independence
Yeah, somewhat disappointing they used it as a source, considering their previous involvement with AskHistorians subreddit (and those guys REALLY dislike Gibbon).
'Decline and Fall' is still highly recommended to read. Like every book, one has to put into perspective the time it was written.
@@mich722 Highly recommended? Well, depends who you ask :P It does have certain literary value though. Very easy to read , both by scientist and layman alike.
@@Moravia300 I believe it's the best introduction, highly readable and entertaining, with so many interesting details and character descriptions as well.
"Fall of Rome" *laughs in Byzantine*
Let me fix it: Laughs in Roman.
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes Byzantine is a city, it's East Roman Empire...
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes lol hijacked the Romans...then the Saxons butcher the Roman Empire...in Roman Empire the Hellenic language was the second language..if u didn't know to speak Greeks u was barbarian back then,also Greeks spoke n latins
Roman elite adopted Greek over Latin since ever. Rome wasnt even important when Lost, the capital was Ravenna.
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes lol
It’s telling that a frank would go on to be crowned as emperor of the Romans 350 years later
While I think Charlemagne was an accomplished man, I find it off putting to consider him a true roman emperor. Especially since the Pope though Irene not worthy to rule, by virtue of being a woman, despite ruling well over a decade as regent before taling the throne.
SyluxV 2 things
I never said Charlemagne was a true roman emperor in the classical sense
But he was ‘emperor of the Romans’ and he did rule a substantial Frankish empire that shared many cultural and social similarities with the late western Roman Empire
Also Irene of Athens was a complete disaster of an empress who alienated the vast majority of the eastern roman military by blinding and murdering her own son after he started to claim power for his own (as was his right as he was now an adult and the official roman emperor)
The argument that a woman can’t be roman emperor is obviously ridiculous but Irene was no ones choice for an empress and she began a trend for divisive and weak roman empresses
@@syluxv2398 I'd say at his time, there was probably nobody who could be more of a western roman Emperor than him. He was well educated, culturally very similar to a roman, catholic and last but not least: He was a strong military leader and the strongest military power in europe. Was he roman in a classical sense? No, but I think he was roman in a way of what the western rooman empire left us after its fall.
Sort of like America having a black President
@@syluxv2398 When the Roman Emperor of the Eastern part can just go "Fuck you Augustulus you're not Western Emperor cause I said so" or "Hey Theodoricus go fuck up Italy and kill Odoacer the guy who I "appointed" to rule Italy and get the fuck out of here" the Pope claiming Irene not being worthy to rule is totally fair to be honest.
Thank you for this information. I am one who likes breakdowns of history, not just the general overview. Great job
Actually the Ostrogoths that inherited Rome were very pro Roman and loved the existing late Roman system that they took up Vulgar Latin and built systems around Roman laws and Roman technologies. Their leader was Theodoric the great who by and large was trained and Romanized in Constantinople. Some of the architecture of the Ostrogoths like the Mausoleum of Theodoric and the Baptistry of San Vitale in Ravenna is a showcase of Ostrogothic late Roman style architecture.
They learnt from Roman scholars and the courts is full of ex Romans. In fact the Ostrogothic Kings were all called King of the Romans as they wanted to be apart of them and become them. Military wise, by the 5th and 6th century AD, the style of combat was more or less quite similar between Goths and late Romans revolving around sheild walls, using Spatha like swords. The only difference is minimal which the Eastern Romans would use darts or javelins and spears like a lite phalanx style to take on large cavalry formations. A vast difference from the classical Roman armies that used Pilas as first contact javelins then the shorter gladius for stabbing through shield wall tactics.
I must admit, as much as I love Roman history, I am sympathetic to the Ostrogothic Kingdom. It could be argued that Justinian's invasion completely destroyed what was left of the Western Roman state. Despite the Ostrogoths being in control of the state and army, the actual day to day running of government was largely left to the local Roman Italians. The buildings were also being preserved and the Senate carried on. There was relative stability as well. And relationship between locals and rulers seems to have for the most part been good. The invasion caused many deaths, wars and instability for decades. I believe that eventually, the Ostrogoths would have blended in with the locals.
@@mich722 Yeah it was quite a shame that had happened to the Ostrogoths who by and large were awesome successors to Rome. Theodoric the Great was the inspirational leader that really brought the Gothic and the Roman systems together in harmony, him being a Roman at heart, tutored by the aristocracy in Constantinople.
One can only dream as you say, of the possibilities of a revived Western Rome under Ostrogothic leadership. I would go so far as to say that the Romans and the Ostrogoths would have rebuilt the Western Roman Empire if Theodoric had the right successors.
Justinian on the other hand was very fortunate to have a fantastic general in Belisarius, in whom he invested his resources to reclaim lost territories, taking full advantage of the death of Theodoric.
In those early medieval or late antiquity period, warfare is a always considered by society to be a benchmark of the capabilities of a leader. They respect a martial leadership more than just status quo. Given the massive problems Justinian faced in the Nika riots and the plague, waging war to reclaim "lost" territories in North Africa and Italy was priority for him to showcase the success of his leadership on a grand scale. All Roman emperors thrive in conquests and the glory of Roman idealism is in winning great battles and bringing the spoils of war back to the capital.
Hence, the Gothic war was more or less due as long as the excellent Theodoric was not amply replaced with another leader, as capable and as visionary.
However we too cannot fault his successors as they did not have ample time to continue their nation building. For the Eastern Romans were another breed, highly ambitious, highly jealous with the famous "Byzantine" politics, they would strike at potential competitor neighbors given half a chance.
Justinian arguably ruined Roman civilization in Italy.
@@luissalcedo6493 I agree with you there.
@@ConstantineJoseph Agreed.
I can't for the life of me understand how your vidoes don't have more views? So interesting and good quality both information wise, topics and animations. It's very easy to follow even if english isn't my first language and the narrorators voice is southing and doesn't become annoying to listen to (even when you binge watch 14 videos in a row)
Even if you don't get alot of views, know that the ones whom is watching, gravely appreciates this channel!
As you can see, Germany coming to Italy's aid when it's in trouble and winding up carrying the war themselves isn't just a 20th century phenomenon.
king and genrals is on other level to near all other history channel only armchair history is on his par this guy is amazing keep up the unreal awesome work
I’m actually happy you call East Rome the Roman Empire since it was
I never said, but congrats on reaching 1.22m subs! Fantastic news for fantastic history!
What brought down the Roman Empire: Not enough Romans to Roman the Roman Empire
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes Wtf why are you calling Italians weak ?
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes
well, if they were weak they wouldnt've established the Roman empire
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes
At the beginning they built a strong army that united the Italian peninsula, then when they annexed other regions they needed more manpower to fill the gap for this large empire. This is natural, every empire that expands it's borders will depend on other nations.
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes
Italians built the Roman empire. Foreigners lost it.
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes bro who built the Roman Empire again?
I find it extremely metal that the Goths didn't just rampage across the empire but also sacked Rome herself but when called on to help defend the empire, they came to honor their word.
That's an oldschool style of honor, two millenia old honor.
Get over yourself
As Rome, particularly in the late period, became more cash-strapped, the advantage of the barbarians was they were cheap: a few rights and privileges and a little piece of land. Rome under the Republic and early Rome as an Empire relied more upon citizens as soldiers. But there is another issue as to why Rome increasingly relied on barbarians. There was the question that the citizen armies were too loyal to their general and ended up making him emperor, a consideration later emperors took very seriously when raising a new citizen army. Another factor why Rome increasingly relied on barbarians has to do with Roman military organization. Rome was built around its infantry and they never developed good cavalry of their own. Barbarian forces, however, were adept at cavalry, as well as archery on horseback, in large numbers, leaving the Roman military system of infantry, used centuries ago, outdated in effectiveness. Yet another factor was that Rome’s civil wars between armies backing a particular general for emperor weakened the overall army of the empire, leaving its own military forces decimated. Thus, Roman armies relied upon barbarians to reconstitute their forces.
@@cosmopolitanbay9508 Also on top of that it became increasingly difficult to pull manpower away from the fields as landowners tried their hardest to keep the best workers for themselves.
People in general had less vitality and preferred the sensual and easy pleasures of a peaceful life to the hard dangerous life of a soldier, the population of the empire was massive and yet it struggled to find recruits and this is in contrast to the far smaller Republic, Caesar and Augustus actually thought the army was to big in their time. it's further supported that the numbers of recruiting declined more due to a "cultural decline" than merely an economic one by the fact that the largest recruiting ground's of the empire were the less civilized province's and amongst the more bellicose populations such as Gaul and Pannonia who had managed to maintain some of their Barbarian vitality and lust for battle Which the comfortable and pleasure seeking dopamine addicted Romans had lost.
@@MrAwrsomeness Easy life my ass - for 99% of Romans the 4th and 5th was anything but easy. And their "massive population" was of no use since the plague had decimated the cities and the few people left had to plow the fields to feed the rest. If you started conscripting people there wouldn't have been any more food. Besides, you can have all the militarist-macho culture in the world - you don't have money you don't have soldiers. Rome problems were not due to a "cultural decadence" or "loss of values" but due to the collapsing economy and quick depopulation.
@@fede98k54 These problems started before the plague, already during the pax romana Italy and the Mediterranean had already ceased to be a recruiting ground despite being far more populous and economically viable than Gaul Pannonia ect By your own logic Italy Egypt Greece Syria should have been the main recruiting ground due to population and economy but they weren't and contrary to your theory The Balkans which was routinely devastated invaded economically destitute remained for centuries one of the main recruiting grounds of the empire and was renown for producing excellent soldiers, how does that fit in with your economic model of decline? it doesn't .
@@MrAwrsomeness It does - the Romans prefered to recruit farmers into the army rather than townsfolk (due to the ridicoulous notion that good farmers were good soldiers, a stupid tradition they inherited from the Republic). Of course this favored the less urbanized provinces but even this became increasingly difficult after the Antonine plague around 180 A.D. - long before the supposed decline of the empire. And with the depopulation of the empire it became impossible to conscript in the same way as before.
Furthermore, continuing with the economic argument, already as early as the reign of Trajan the Romans were forced to begin debasing the currency to afford their armies and this was a slow poison which destroyed the empire. It was the reason the Roman army become ever more loyal to their generals rather than the Emperor who couldn't afford the exorbitant prices of their loyalty. When the Roman treasury became so destitute that it was cheaper to contract mercenaries than mobilizing the ever dimishing tax base - that was when the fall of Western Empire became inevitable. Economics are the lifeblood of empires and when one falls it's economy had declined for much longer.
But no, I'm sure it was the cultural decadence of Rome that made it collapse - the easy life of the average roman serf living among the pleasures of the vast depopulated fields and not something as nuanced and complex as economics.
I can however imagine which parallels to the modern world can someone draw with such ideas. Anyway I do not intend to continue this discussion as I did not intend to begin one in the first place - I only found it ridicoulous calling the life of the average Roman then easy or plaesant, as if they were at fault for the decline of their nation, as if they had the power to do anything to fix it. Have a good day Sir.
0:10 just hearing those words bring tears to my eyes
I always think the book "Why nations fail" gives the best answer to why Rome eventually fell and the finger can be pointed at the increasingly self serving elite class. Over time the economy is made to serve the rich and consolidate their power and things just slowly fall apart. Needed reforms were never made and because the internal economy was stagnant expansion was the only way to grow the economy bringing its own problems. I would love to see a video focusing on that.
"Why Nations Fail" is about as authoritative as Guns, Germs and Steel. It's written with an agenda in mind and doesn't stand up to academic scrutiny.
The background music is the soundtrack from Total War: Rome II
WOW
Yeah, they seem to use total war music and footage in a lot of their videos. I found that they're using it according to the period covered too, if it's Roman history they'll use music from Rome 2, if it's in the 18th century they'll use music from empire and so on
I think I hear some Total War: Attila too
@@paoloantoniobaladad5895 ok
If i ever won some huge lottery i'd give you $1.000.000 no questions asked, the respect i got for this channel can't be counted in money.
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ OLAV TAKE MY ENERGY ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
@Deus Ex I don't remember Berbers or Numidians sacking Rome, but go off
@Deus Ex you smoking weed?
@@stygian8049 More like asbestos.
He tries to paint his obscure and false worldview over history.
Not is he viewing, reading and understanding history and then building his world view or meaningful understanding but the other way around.
That's highly ideological and testifies historical ignorance.
@Deus Ex As a Northern European i'll tell you right here and now that we're the ones that ultimately ruined it. Middle Easterners and North Africans were basically what kept the empire afloat. Without Egypt, Tunis, Syria and Anatolia the empire would never have lasted as long as it did. Don't force modern xenophobia on ancient Rome.
And now I want to play Total War again.
When you spend all your hard earned denarii every single turn on that sweet, cheap, fresh, green Barbarian Cavalry.
With their fabulous moustache
Clibanarii Heavy Shock Cavalry for me.
It seems to me that the Foederati system was a powerful tool that needed to be managed carefully. Like a fire like that either warms a home or burns it down. The real problem is that the Roman power structure was so prone to civil war that it simply brought out the worst of the Foederati system.
They should have been distributed across the regular units under Roman officers and oversight. Not allowed to be controlled by warlords given Roman titles who still controlled their own personal armies.
@@mich722 bold of you to assume that the barbarians would agree to that. Remember that barbarian conferacies grew over time which in turn increased their bargaining power.
It wasn’t the use of “barbarian” troops alone that ended the western empire. Afterall the eastern empire used Germanic and Hunnish troops as well. And would always use “foreign” troops to some degree. The real issue was the unstable situation in the west. Continuous civil wars eroded the west’s military strength, while weak emperors allowed the empire to rapidly decline. And when competent emperors arose they got stabbed in the back. Despite this I think there’s a case to be made that even near the damn end the empire could’ve been saved. Majorian was able to reconquest much of the west with what few romans remained, supplemented by miscellaneous german and hunnic mercenaries. If it weren’t for a sneak attack/betrayal of his fleet he would’ve retaken Africa and might have been able to truly reforge the empire.
this is what you get when you relie on barabrians ! a roman army would never cause the very end of the empire they might seek money change emperors but never to that that point !
raouf duc Well romans had been using foreigners for their entire existence. Be they foedi or auxiliary. Using them wasn’t an issue. And rebellious Romans are very much the reason why we got to this point. It was the greedy and disloyal Romans who caused the numerous civil wars and rebellions that allowed the western empire to grow so weak that it couldn’t properly respond to exponentially growing threat of the Germans.
@@connorgolden4 you have a point but what i did not understand is why there was not attempts to restor the roman empire ! do you have any ideas !!
raouf duc What do you mean by “restore the empire”? Half the empire survived, only falling in 1453. And several attempts were made to restore the western half.
The first time was by the Emperor Majorian. When he came to power he only had Italy and northern Gaul. He got Dalmatia to peacefully return (it had revolted after the death of Aetius) and went on the campaign. He defeated the Burgundians, Visigoths, and Suebi. He was going to retake africa (needed for Rome’s survival) and would’ve won if not for a betrayal/sneak attack. After that his reconquests were lost again.
Next up was Anthemius. He also tried to retake Africa and other lands but was met with catastrophe and was also killed off later on.
Finally we have Justinian. The most successful of the attempts to restore the western half. He retook North Africa, Illyria, parts of Spain, and Italy. But Italy was devastated in a needlessly drawn out war. And lost much of it to lombards in the decades after his death.
In my opinion Majorian was the best option.
@@raoufduc1441 Besides Imperialx's points on the Eastern half of the empire, there was also that the Papacy had actually named Charlemagne as legal successor to Emperor Julius Nepos, and the Holy Roman Empire would continue to use the 'Imperator Romanorum' title till 1806 when it was dissolved. So the Roman Empire in the West would technically be the Holy Roman Empire after 800.
YESSSS! Thanks for another great vid brother!
Thanks :-)
There is a lot of debate about the fall of Rome but I can't help feel that the same thing happened to them which happened to almost every other great state that fell, that of becoming complacent. The people and families that ruled these great states for so long have become so used to being at the top they fail to carry on the legacy of their forefathers. Rome's great attitude to administration and army quality was eroded not by barbarians, who were generally good soldiers, but by the fact that the people of the late empire had simply grown fat and focusing on the things that were byproducts of greatness, culture and architecture and forgetting the things that make states great, stability and good governance. Instead even while their empire fell the western emperors sat in Ravenna holding feasts pretending that they were still the masters of the world. We saw this in other empire's as well. The russian czars constantly refusing reform in face of revolution or the king's of europe before WW1 allowing the continent to creep towards war because they didn't have the talent of the people before them like Bismarck who would have actually taken action.
Complacency from within is the downfall of all the greatest civilisations. We are still seeing it now with the fall in influence of the USA but we'll have to see if it can pull itself back from decline.
I think the alleged need of importing migrants into an empire is already signalling that it started to rot from within. Because if everything worked so great it would also be able to produce enough new population from its existing citizenbase.
@@borisan5048 Except the inclusion of migrants had going since the days of the Roman Kingdom before the Republic. Mind you, back then not everyone in Italy was Roman, but were their own independent city states that Rome either conquered or assimilated.
@@borisan5048 I think that migration into the empire wasn't so much a big deal as being able to assimilate those migrants. Rome was after all an empire of countless languages and cultures. Roman Egypt was completely different than Roman Britain in almost every way excpet for the idea of being 'Roman'. The idea of being a citizen was an aspiration for many because the empire was so powerful and ingratiating yourself with it just made sense. As soon as Rome stopped expanding it forgot how to integrate different cultures and make them get along with the overriding idea of being roman keeping everyone together. That's what made it hard to integrate the goths who dealt the hardest blow to the empire. It's the same with the USA, america was at it's most powerful when it welcomed many people but made the idea of being an american something that united the country behind certain things like freedom and equality which produced a strong unified nation.
@@Rumborumbo87 Not to tread on the rosy view of history, but the US has struggled with anti immigrant views for well over 150 years at this point; the country has never been particularly united beyond outside threats. Historically, the idea of being 'American' seems more to be the ability to argue about everything and still be a nation.
Unfortunately, at the time of most need they had the worst 'leaders' possible. Honorius and Valentinian should be considered as actual disasters.
This is a great video! Thank you, Kings and generals!
marvelous video, I adore your well-researched content.
Great doc. I absolutely love your channel. Thanks for producing such great and informative documentaries on Rome.
its insane that rome has dominated europe and beyond for such a long period of time!
They were more advanced compared to every area they conquered.
I'd love a video on Ricimer, Odoacer, as well as what the Roman army was like during those periods
Could you make a video about the battle of Avarayr?
Love your channel!
Can you make a video about "the battle of Teuteburg forrest" ?
We have one
@@KingsandGenerals nice 😀
Bielefeld doesn't exist.
Roses are red
Italy has many regions
Quintilius Varus
GIVE ME BACK MY LEGIONS
@@aneesh2115 lol
At the battle of Strasbourg in 357 A.D. the imperial Clibanarii were routed by the Alemmani and it was the mostly Germanic infantry (in the Roman army) that held the battle line and saved the army from annihilation.
Love it when people try to claim that a multi-ethnic polity like the Roman Empire was somehow brought down by foreigners. The Romans were victims of their own success and buckled under the weight of being overstretched, exhausted from civil wars, and poor management. Thank you Kings and Generals for the excellent video
@Mazhar Imam the Germans were going to invade whether the Romans let them in or not, hiring Germans to fight off other Germans was a good strategy and likely slowed the Empire's ultimate collapse
This channel just keeps getting more sophisticated
Well, I'd say that Gibbon also blamed the Fall on Christianity.
Yes, he did. He is quite scathing on some of the actions of the Christians, especially the destruction of monuments, temples and ancient statues because they were considered to represent 'demons'. Even the statue of Victory was removed from the Senate in Rome and Gibbon also comments on the irony of this. And also all the time wasted on useless metaphysical debate instead of putting that focus on fighting their enemies.
Michima In my copy, the editor made a footnote that said: “This is quite a good introduction to Christian history, except for the sarcastic tone.”
I’d blame the Christians before I’d ever blame the foederati
@@christianarchambault6111 The 'humanitarian' view on allowing the Goths to enter the empire has been blamed on that. The soldiers were furious, they wanted to cut down anyone who crossed the river. The upper-classes and Senators were however talking about saving fellow human-beings. Now, the Roman Empire would have large amounts of enemies settling and raiding within their own borders.
Michima I bet sounds a lot like today just less at stake
Great video, as always! ... But when will you upload the Templar Knights? I've been waiting anxiously since your Knight's Hospitaller video! :D
Can you please make a video about war elephats
Logic behind it:
Step 1 obtain the undefeatable army,
Step 2 get defeated by another army,
Step 3 buy that army,
Step 4 repeat.
Step 3 is unnecessary when you already own both opposing forces, and pin them against each other through mind control propaganda.
Michael A ahh i see we have an englishman here 😂
1:59 “may have an image in your head”
Me: just loads of Centurii-chan’s drawings, my guy
4:20 Holy Fuck, here I am, having had an online class about the Ptolemies (?) today and my professor haunts me all the way to K&G. 😂 I never even thought about the fact that some of my profs even to be somewhat famous.
Battle at Frigidus (Cold river) was in Slovenia, close to Vipava.
Fun fact: the myth about the Roman army's "barbarization" started in the 19th century. As nationalistic fervour swept through Europe, the idea that Roman legions could employ non-Romans in their ranks was quite ... uncomfortable, to say the least (Roman culture still had quite some weight).
Thus, the myth of Roman military decline due to the employment of barbarians begun, when in reality, those barbarians would fight with no less distinction than their Roman counterparts.
For further informations, I suggest the works of Alessandro Barbero, Italian professor of Medieval and Military History. His lectures on the subject are fascinating.
Very useful topic. Well done.
Even if they didn't kill the Empire, there's an important lesson:
Pay and respect your mercenaries, because sooner or later, the unpaid mercenaries will realize they have swords and you don't.
Didn’t that happen to Carthage as well?
@@willphoenix5464 Yeah, the Iberians started revolting against carthage under the protection of Rome, however the celts in iberia as well as Celt Iberians were a lot more trouble to deal with, especially since they were frequently raiding Iberians and Romans alike, not to mention that the entire central and northwest peninsula was settled with petty kingdoms.
The artwork makes it cool. Way more better than what my teacher teaches at school
Yes
The loss of Martial culture was one of tje reasons Rome Fell
@victor soto
Loss of martial culture
Germanics
Christianity
Civil wars
Slaves
Financial crisis
Climate Change
Pandemics
One specific point:
While Roman treaties were held to be between peoples (i.e, between the Romans and the Visigoths), Germanic culture viewed treaties as between individuals (i.e, Alaric and Theodosius). When Theodosius died, Alaric was free to "renegotiate" the terms of the treaty from a Gothic perspective. The Romans ascribed this to "barbarian treachery", but, despite these sorts of problems occurring again and again, it seems they never got a clue.
Gibbon was a great historian, BUT his approach to history, IMO, is shallow and outdated. I have read him his book.
He does not go into the demographic and social changes that occurred in the Roman Empire.
As I see it, as Rome established its Empire after the Punic Wars. The rich started acquiring the Roman farms, creating large estates manned by slaves. Not only did this swell the population of Rome, but it also started dropping the fecundity of the Roman people.
That lack of demographic power is what caused the eventual decline of Rome. Rome had to rely too much on outside help to keep the Empire together.
For me, the big question is why couldn't (or didn't) Rome apply the same policies to conquered people outside of Italy, as it applied to the conquered tribes in Italy.
In Italy, some cities and groups were able to become Roman citizens.
What would have happened if the people in Gaul, Iberia, Greece, etc saw themselves as full Roman citizens? Something close to the modern state could have been created, with nationalism, not tribalism, being the great unifier. Then, would the Empire have fallen apart under the barbarian invasions of the 5th century?? I wonder.
Craig Dillon I totally agree
Didn't Caracalla give Roman Citizenship to all free men in AD 212?
Craig Dillon Yeah, I don’t see your point, All people within the empire were given full citizenship by the mid 200s
Rome i would say in the end lost it's roman identity, it became a corrupted version of it's self, The East managed to gain it back somewhat.
Alaric and Stilicho were best friends and comrades, one of the main reasons that Alaric revolted was that he wanted to become magister militum of Illyria.
Came here for a history lesson and ended up buying a wallet lol
Thanks for supporting us :-)
The Best present for my birthday! Thank you!
Happy Birthday!
As a scolar of that particular eriod, this video is ok but, as any youtube production, it stays a little bit to much on the surface. It is important to study not only the dynamics at the frontier with the barbarians, but also what was going on in the central empire. All in all, most archeologist and historian in acadmia today agree that Rome could have levied armies far larger than any barbarian group could at that time. However, the main problem was the internal wars of Rome. Each time an usurpator rose in this time period, he was a general on one of Rome frontier. When rising and marching to make his claim, he would leave that aprt of the frontier undergarded, leaving place to barbarian incursions. It would afterward take lots of effort for Rome to reassert its dominance in the region. The dynamic was thus that Rome was weakening itself.
I don't want to do a full thesis here but I recommand for better understanding of those subject:
Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migration and the Romane West : 376-568. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2007.
Michael Kulikowski, "The Western Kingdoms" in The Oxford handbook of Late Antiquity, 2012.
Their works are very basis for this subject mater and should be among the reads anyone with an interest in the fading away of the Western Roman Empire should read.
Bro, chill
I don't know if this will interest anyone, but in France we still use the name of the Roman province "Gaul" sometimes when referring to French people (Gauls, or "gaulois" in French).
Also, I live in France, but on the border with Germany, and there the people speak a German dialect that they call "francique", (like the Franks), and a lot of them have been Latinized through history, and today their villages have French names with Frankish origin. Sadly the Frank's dialect is dying, both in France and in Germany.
Your refering to loraine franconian ? Well dont worry dutch evolved from low franconian so frankish language is not gonna extinct in the near future
@@alpharius8264 Yes Iam; that's cool it's gonna survive!
Invasions?
Histrorian:Nah
Economics?
Historian:Nah
Civil wars?
Historian:Nah
Foreigners?
Historian:Realshit
@@AndrewTheMandrew531 People are the bedrock of a Empire and Rome cared less and less for its people, why do you think it was ripped apart by those who knew how to get peoples trust
@@AndrewTheMandrew531 FoReIgNeRs
The mighty Roman empire would never collapse just because of mass immigration. You are those type of people that never looked to yourself when analyzing what went wrong. Let's just forget the fact that the Roman economy stagnated due to countless civil war.
@@OscarDirlwood yikes
The Abyss Watchers Another edgelord comes to rain on everyone’s parade-
What about the countless Civil Wars that raged during the Third Century? If that isn’t enough to dissuade someone’s faith in an institution I don’t know what would.
@Fiasco And ? Rome was powerful enough to keep it under control, if only they didn't have countless civil war that stagnated their economy and weakened their army.
Too nice history video thanks 👍
"As with many people, we were using outdated wallets designed in the 90s. We moved away from large flip phones to smartphones, but why did our wallets never get the upgrade we deserve?"
The bifold wallet was made in the 50s and was never upgraded because it's not a phone! You don't need a steel and carbon fiber wallet to protect your credit cards. Ridge products are overpriced garbage. Phone cases that don't protect the screen for $50. Generic nylon bags with the Ridge logo slapped on them for $100+. A titanium bottle opener for $35.
As always great video. Don't know what we would have passed our time in qurantine without kings and general.
Waiting for next episode from #Ottomanwars.
Happines, is what happen whenever K&G releases a video.
We appreciate it!
It's easy to fall for the trap that there was one singular reason for it's fall. There were many! Major events and turning points in history are usually complex situations with many underlying causes.
They ended it themselves mostly, due to selfishness , big ego's and paranoia. Their broken system destroyed them from inside out, once it's divided Rome becomes vulnerable.
Instead of doing what was best for Rome, they did what was best for their individual selves, even if it meant it would damage Rome.
They killed and betrayed the people who brought Rome to its peak, only to have power, attention, woman and do whatever u want without consequences until the paranoia came and someone else betrayed and killed.
American Empire anybody?
@Marcelo Henrique Soares da Silva Exactly but when Rome became superior, it fell apart from the inside cause all the rich want to rule a all ready baked cake that ruled.
People that had no business leading army's did so to have a good story if they won and got something done back in Rome.
They made war on all sides like Hitler and lost.
Saw the title, immediately thought, "in a word, yes, in more than a word, it's complicated, but still yes."
Good morning :D
Top of the morning!
Murican spotted
its nighttime for me 🎑🎑🎑🎑
good night
Good video as always. There is a small problem, none all the franks were loyal to Rome. The Salian Franks (actual Belgium and northern Gallia) led by kings like Childeric were loyal to Rome. Childeric himself was very fond of roman culture and language. The Ripuarian Franks (Franconnia) however were not, an often attacked roman borders. The are several entities of franks not only one. For example Salian fought with Aetius against Attila ad the Ripuarian fought with the latter against Aetius. But as I said good video as always.
The Franks were seriously some of the fiercest and loyal soldier in the imperial army. In the Battle of Argentoratum. The Franks serving in Cornuti Seniores and Brachiati held their ground firmly against overwhelming number of Aleman horsemen until Roman cavalry began rallying again. Their commander also died in action. But their action helped saving Romans right flank.
Great video and artwork
"An empire of Iron and Rust"
Nice!
In my honest opinion the two biggest reasons for the fall of Western Rome were the plagues that ravaged the lands of Europe. Secondly, the food shortage in Western Rome. The western Roman empire got cut off Alexandria (The granery of the Empire at that time). Which saw a decline in food. Add the plagues and you got yourself an injured lion fighting to hold on to an empire too big and complicated for it's own good.
The fact that the Like to Dislike ratio on this video (and many other K&G videos as well) is 76:1 demonstrates the sheer awesomeness of these videos!
Keep up the content!
Thanks!
Could anyone recommend a channel like this but focused more on law and administration? I'm interested to know about the finances, tax collection, budgeting, public works, trade, ect.
I think the channel is called 'invicta' or 'invictus.' They might have what you're looking for.
@@ariyoiansky291 thanks. I'm already subscribed. I wonder if there's a series that goes into details into about the structure of social institutions, day to day life of a public servant/lawyer/record keeper/merchant/accountant.
There seems to always be a greater focus of war and conquest and less on administration. Great empires are won through conquest but maintained through good administrations. How did; the East India Company manage their books, the Chinese structure their bureaucracies, the Inca monitor food production? How was; the library of Alexandria managed, Venetian banks structured?
I always thought the Roman Empire ended at 1453.
Because you're greek
@@dragooll2023 thank you for enlightening me.
@@ΛεωνάνδροςΠεργαμενός Np, the roman empire ended in 1922
@@dragooll2023explain? 🤔
@@ΛεωνάνδροςΠεργαμενός The Osmanli dynasty could be considered a roman one as well. Just like Yuan and Qing are considered chinese by conquest.
Yes thanks for more Roman Empire videos can you do some more on the imperial Roman army like so he can see
I mean, the Hobbits served the Kingdom of Gondor and Numenor faithfully, especially during the final War of the Ring...
Hey man quick question, do you have a team that draws the squares and maps in some of your other videos or do you find them online?
Truth is the strategy of letting barbarians within the Empire in exchange for protection would've worked, if not for the Empire's refusal to keep their promises.
Great video! Please please please, make a series on the "Migration Era", it is really one of those transition times that people forget and that in general, we could learn a lot from this amazing channel! Thank you
The use of auxiliary such as the Goth in later days, and using them as fodder, and then later restricting their land usage was mistake. One teaching them in Roman tactics was a bad move
Not sure if Rome had a choice, their own manpower on the field was lacking. I'd say it's a little like being snowed in and being forced to take apart your house piece by piece to burn to stave off freezing to death.
Eventually, Rome couldn't negotiate from a position of strength.
Loving the animations in this video.
Did you guys use a modern map? The Netherlands on the map u guys picked shows Flevoland, a province that we created from the sea in the 20th century hahaha
That's Atlantis you silly Swamp-German. It certainly isn't a Dutch-built polder. You're just imagining things.
@@apotato6278 You saying the Dutch build Atlantis?
@@Crytica. I mean, you might aswell do it. You're master engineers so there isn't much stopping you.