This is a re-upload of one of my first videos, because I received a copyright claim after 2 years. I changed some things, but the video is essentially the same. Funny, that now after 2 years, I find myself disagreeing on some topics with myself XD 🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴 🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus Or become an official Maiorianus member on TH-cam: th-cam.com/users/Maiorianus461join
Welp, just watching it once more then to help restore the original view numbers. Perhaps do a follow-up on how your thinking evolved and where you disagree?
Reason number 0. The economic system initially mostly reliant on exploitation of the new provinces, necessitating constant military conquest, as the older conquered territories were eventually becoming integral parts of the empire proper and were stopping to generate superprofits and to provide cheap slave labor. Thus the territory growing to the size far beyond of what could be efficiently governed from a single seat of power with the means of communication and travel of the time. The lack of the new territories which would be as profitable to conquer as the lands around the Mediterranean and the Gaul initially were. Resulting necessity to keep an enormous, non-productive and uncontrollable military force in attempts to preserve the integrity of the state, which made creation of a stable self-sustainable economy and political system impossible. All the rest were more or less the results rather than causes.
I like this reason the most. Almost looks like the Roman reached the peak of its efficiency their technology allowed before the third century. The rest was their struggle against its decline, spent all their resources doing it.
Great video. I especially liked the ranking system for the decline. As an American, I sadly see my own country repeating most of these mistakes, just on fast forward.
There is no way the USA can be invaded. Second USA is a republic and there is no way for a monarchy to arise. These times allow technology and self-awareness that were impossible in those times. Relax man.
There is no way the USA can be invaded. Second USA is a republic and there is no way for a monarchy to arise. These times allow technology and self-awareness that were impossible in those times. Relax man.
@BOIOLA08 there's no way the US can be invaded? We've already been invaded, numerous times in history. Secondly, it wasn't invasions that ended the Roman Empire, it was from within. You have zero grasp of history at all.
For me one of the biggest reasons for the fall is rampant corruption, which lead to senators and the praetorian guard being more loyal to their benefactors than the empire (And the emperor),. This leads the imperial treasury being drained leaving the empire short on money, which lead to higher taxes, which lead to more revolts and devaluation of the roman currency, which lead to economic recession and more armies revolting and so on. Also the corruption lead to the death of many emperors who wished to crack down on corruption.
Christianity. Sure a lot of the military rosters were inflated, just as in modern afghan and Iraq so called military. The scheme goes back to Rome. The commander gets half your pay and you don't have to show up.
Excellent analysis (as we've come to expect!), although I feel, such was their catastrophic effect on populations, the successive waves of plagues really cannot to be overlooked. I'd love to see Constantine I and Theodosius I "de-greated", as whatever achievements are attributed to both, each was responsible for at least one significant folly, seriously weakening the empire.
10:56 this wasn’t the Christian’s doing. Lack of motivation was due to inflation of worthless coins and a high chance of death (especially in the late empire). Them maiming themselves or choosing to watch games instead of defending themselves from foreigners was on them, not the Christians. Christianity may have played a small part in the fall, but it also played a part in extending it and preserving it after it fell. Great video Imperator.
It's humbling to see how resilient Rome was. With near constant civil war it soldiered on for fifteen centuries... Had either the adoption system or the Tetrarchy worked as intended, I'm willing to bet the Roman Empire would still exist, stronger than ever.
Orestes and Romulus were arguing again. The young emperor's Greek was still nothing like fluent and he showed more interest for the new Iberian music fad than for anything remotely political, or, God forbid, legal. The heavy tapestry depicting the whole Mediterranean world he had adorned with wooden figurines of barbarian soldiers, each with their own typical attire and weapons. The Codex Theodosianus lay untouched on the table. As the father threatened to have the boy's toys removed, Romulus stormed out of the room, slamming the door so hard the tapestry went down on a lamp and caught fire. That's how it happened.
I've played most games of the Civilization series and I find that my Empires always seem to decline in the modern era, not because of any in-game reason but because I tend to get bored, there's not much more to research and I stop caring about diplomacy and whether or not I win or lose wars. I'm not saying the Roman Empire fell in the same way but an Empire's populace losing interest in their Empire or the values it promoted is a real phenomenon that can contribute to decline.
This is why always leaned against being warlike in Civilization. I instead made sure that the faith of the people was unified behind a belief system that was both rational and transcendent. This answers both essential questions and motivates a firm support for the culture. Just being warlike does get boring and leads inevitably to enemies joining up against and defeating one.
I played the Civilization game series also and I am still a big fan of Civilization 5 ( I still play this game continously since 10 years and is not getting boring.) I always play only with Conquering victory goal (but I mainly build on strong defense and a big empire with many cities, to dominate, not aggressive). When I am sure, that I reached a status of very strong dominance, to have much more points and realm, than the hostile AI-Players, I just declare my victory and stop the game and restart. Above a certain point, when your victory is sure, it would be a boring waste of time to play. Just do not do it ! Feel free to stop and restart. I have one tip for you, what I found interesting and give some "spice" to the game. I always create 2-Player teams. Me and 1 permanent AI-Ally against other independent, AI-2-er Teams. This is interesting, how you help your ally (that can not betray you) and work together. Its true, that we can learn a lot of things about the real history mechanisms when we play such kind of games, but I do not believe, that your comparison between the late phase of the game is fitting to the reasons, why the Roman Empire collapsed. As I was a child, I was asking myself, how did this collapse happened and especially, I was wondering, how the majority of the "normal" citizens, gave up their great historical achievement, to have a republic and NOT a kingdom. How so many people were ready to support Julius Cesar to get to power instead of the senate. Later, I read in a book a pretty good answer. Because the elites of Rome got so corrupted and the whole system of the state got so corrupted in any way, that many people got totally disconnected from the statehood and from the leadership. The people felt betrayed and exploited by the elites, represented by the senate and their allies. This lead to thinking, that a good, strong, smart and honest roman, like Julius Cesar, would be better, than keep the elites in power and let them ruin the state and the lives of the citizens more and more. But, to that time I read about this, more than 30 years ago, I was not really able to imagine this. This was to abstract for me. TODAY I see it clearly, how this happened because almost the same is happening today in the western world. A great and fast decline. Spreading of corruption in the state. The citizens got betrayed again badly by the current leadership in many countries (Germany, USA, etc.) and the elites lost their connection to a big part of the citizens, they lost their connection even to the reality, they lost their connection the to truth and they lost their connection to the country (no more real love to the country, the elites only follow international groups of interests to gain more power and wealth.) More and more people are left behind and they are totally sick all of this. if today someone with the quality of Julius Cesar would come, many would support him against the government. Today, in many western countries, many people hate the own government and their rotten morale "values" more, than they hate external enemies.
Apparently I play Civ differently to most people. I see a lot of players seeking to build their empires as efficiently as possible - they know that after a certain number of turns, they can research this, or build X new unit to capture enemy cities by turn Y but I never really found that way of playing fun. I don't actually play to necessarily win, I play to roleplay being a civilization and things going wrong can be just as entertaining to me. I heavily modded Civ4 to add 200% more units and buildings, changed some gameplay mechanics and made the game run as slowly as possible (I hated it when a new unit became available to me then already became obsolete a few turns later). One of the best games I played, lasted for months, where I built a Classical era Roman style empire, but instead of declining, it grew by the industrial era to something like the global British Empire. Then just like in the real world, huge wars happened and it started to fall apart by the modern era, the whole world order changed with new countries rising, then everything became unusually peaceful in the future era (I added new tech) where the only conflict was space-ship building.@@janostoth4315
I had a book on the subject a few decades ago. I loaned it to a relative who never gave it back. The book boiled down the fall of the Western Roman Empire down to one word “disunity”. The many ruinous civil wars, religious strife, not only Christian vs pagan but among various Christian sects such as Aryans vs Catholics vs Orthodox.
The Roman decadence is not a disproven theory. It is very well known fact that a weakening of culture standards creates a soft underbelly leaving any person country or empire vulnerable. It very much should be in the conversation when talking about the many reasons why Rome gradually declined.
The more important and sad part is not the fall of the Empire, but that it wasn't able to be reunited. I think the comparisons with China are very telling. While the is an Antiquity to Antiquity, and Qin Shi Huang Di labelled himself after someone who allegedly had been the first unifier, 2500 years before him, we can be quite certain that the Han Dynasty was really the first to impose centralisation. And the stories of these 2 states go in parallel quite well - you have the crysis of the late republic, and you have Wang Mang; you have the Crysis of the 3rd Century, and you have the 3 Kingdoms Period. If anything, China seemed less fortunate, and the fall of Jin, the failed attempts of Eastern Jin to reunify the country, these preceed the fall of the Western Roman Empire and Belisarius' campaigns by a couple centuries. What followed there was very very similar to early Medieval Europe. But after 300 years of mess, the Sui somehow managed to bring everything back together. That is what Europe missed on - the Franks, maybe, being able to reunite the whole Empire. Had they done so, or had the Byzantines not been stopped by plague and arab expansions a couple centuries earlier, we would probably still see ourselves as Romans to this day. Again, in China, after that fortunate reunification, you had the golden age of Tang, then a short messy period, and quick reunification again. In the 1300, in the Romance of thw 3 Kingdoms, written a millenia after the events, the author felt it was appropriate to start with the famous line: "the kingdom, long united, must divide; long divided, must unite". It is not the Fall that mattered most, but the failure to reunify, like they had done before on a couple of ocassions. Whether we blame it on the misfortune of Justinian's Plague, or the rise of the arabs, or the Franks splitting themselves up on purpose... That is the tragedy. And it's the difference between Europe being a "continent" and China being a "country".
I agree with you because Europe is a continent while china is a country making it easier to unify. While the Romans struggled at times to keep three continents unified under one state for thousands of years. Which shows Romes durability and survivable aspect to show to this day.
Quite notes: research the natural disaster of 536 AD, remember the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204 and consider that the East was essentially Monophysite, rejecting Chalcedon, thus laying the groundwork for the Islamic invasion and apparent ease of conquest (the people already could accept Allah as Muhammad defined Him).
@@gac7324 The thing is, the fact that China is now a unified country gives the impression that it was the obvious outcome, but it really wasn't. For most of its history, more people lived there than in all of Europe, North Africa and Middle East combined; and if you look at it closely you see how huge it really is. A sense of unified Chinese-ness is Historically as likely (i would argue even less likely) than us still having a sense of common Roman...ity. Big empires will break up eventually. The tragedy is that our ancestors were unable to reunite it. And now it is maybe way too late. Which is why we talk so much about the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, and the Fall of Constantinople - we are haunted by the fact that we were not able to rectify these events.
There is a reason why late Roman soldiers looked in many ways the same as Germanic warriors. Mainly because they were Germanic warriors and it was more practical to have them outfitted and fight in their traditional ways.
@chripianflopez You make a point there. Would be interesting to know if chainmail was cheaper than lorica segmentata. Also, how standardized was the late equipment compared to the "classic" one.
This was another WOW learning experience for me. This summary is very logical and well organized. It certainly undermines the Gibbon decadence theory. I would love to see an update including the evolved thinking of our host. Sadly in today's USA, we have warring factions within our own government driven by ego needs. IMHO, this is greatly diminishing the power of America and will be a major contributor to the destabilization of the post WWII world order........and we are going down very fast, considering Ukraine, threats from China and Iran, plus the turmoil in the Middle East.
I'm not sure about Christianity, it was once thought it had "softened" the spirit of the Romans but it's not like it made the emperors become saints or stopped people from fighting wars, also most of the barbarian tribes that invaded Rome were already christians too by the 5th century. It's also possible instead that having one only religion strenghtened the empire by making the citizen more united and the Church being a well organized institution and present everywhere took some of the administration duties thus lightening the workload on the state administration. About economy I'm sure the end of the "Roman warm period" and the approaching of the "little ice age of late antiquity" played a huge role in the dimishing of the economic and military strenght of both the western and eastern Roman Empires, an agrarian society thrives with a warm weather.
I agree with your points, brother. I dissent somewhat from the contention that the Empire actually did have one faith. I have studied the religious history of the times and have found that the Faith was only the Great Church version for long stretches throughout the Empire period. This was true particularly in the East, which eventually fragmented altogether and was why the Roman Empire there regularly was confined as the less-Catholic elements broke away and were taken by the encroaching empires to the East. In the West, the core faith did seem to be unified but, as our author notes, it was the government which rotted away from within. Finally, the Christianity of the Goths was Arian, which meant they could have thought of themselves as ridding the West of the noxious Catholics holding to that silly proposition that the one Person of the Christ was eternally God in one nature and temporally Man in His other. Clearly, the Great Church definition at Chalcedon won out overall, but is still not accepted in wide swaths of the Middle East (to the extent that Christianity exists there at all, of course). Thus, even setting aside the remains of original Roman belief, there was actually no time when Rome completely believed in one faith.
Also, Constantine really changed Christianity and essentially combined it with cult of sol invictus and Mithrasism it was actually a net positive for the empire.
@@paulkelly2701 Absolutely true, I almost forgot how controversies about Christian doctrine plagued Europe in general for almost 1300 years after Constantine
@@ale_s45 And I don't forget the many varieties of atheism now proliferating. No belief system can be free of them and especially not now when individual insight seems to be considered the ne plus ultra of thought.
@@daveweiss5647 Not true at all. He merely presided and no such synthesis was done. It is a modern canard to suggest otherwise. Of course, you have read all the canons of Nicaea, yes? If not, then I recommend you do so. You will find that sol invictus was an invention after Constantine's time and Mithraism simply a soldier faith which grew alongside Christianity, as did Gnosticism.
You should re release more of your old videos, your production quality has increased markedly and it would really help your channel and be cool to see them with the higher quality.
I think the degeneracy argument this that many of these problems are caused by degeneracy. Or at least would have been solved without the degeneracy. Especially these betrayals are a function of selfishness at the expense of quality. "it should also be noted that the east had the richer provinces" Since Adam Smith's the wealth of nations we know how to be rich: allow people to do good. But for some reason degenerates cannot help themselves to strangle their economies. Like the west is doing now, supposedly for diversity and climate, they're chosing poverty.
I was gonna say. Diseases must've affected Romans and barbarians quite differently. And the Roman practice of public baths with lukewarm cess pools and sharing of the butt wipes.. yuck.
I think the "Use the Army to take charge" pattern started with Caesar crossing the Rubicon, but it didn't end there. There had been leaders who used mobs or violence to get their way even before that. They never did have a stable transfer of power mechanism.
It's even older than Caesar, Sulla was the first to violate the holy perimeter of Rome with his legions, it was so unthinkable that he allegedly excused his officers from joining him.
It was a long and slow decline and fall that began when ratings began to drop in the second season. New season with a new emperor, Tiberius, did not help. Plainly, the public was growing bored with both the Roman Empire and the Claudians.
The island of Britain has been free of major invasions or Civil Wars since 1746 - this was one of the reasons why Britain achieved greatness. The strange combination of a ceremonial monarchy, like that of Japan, and a Parliamentary system that allowed the great families to compete for power (till 1832 powerful landed families controlled most seats in the House of Commons) without having to face each other on the field of battle - rather like Republican Rome before the conflict between the Populares and Optimates. But then the British landed families relied on rent paying tenants - rather than slave worked estates. Even during the Industrial Revolution the number of people working in farming actually went UP (right till after the 1851 census) - it was the extra people (the births who would have otherwise have died) who went to the towns to work in factories.
I wanted to make a video about the end of the Roman Empire and the decline of imperial authority myself, but now I fell quite discouraged, because this video already was so good... 😭
Its an excellent video, but what I found as a big mistake that you focus on political and military, but to wage war what you need the most is money. The emperors most of the time raised the taxes and the limitation on the economy. I would say that would cause most of the points that you mention as political problems. When taxes are high, people has shorter view of the future because of the the hardships and that reduces the amount of children they have (just look around today). They invest less into things and there is less trade. You even mention in other videos that after the fall of the empire, most of the exroman cities boomed economically, because the heavy tax burdens and regulations were gone. Ah and the rampant corruption that came from centralized political powers. I would say economy was the biggest issue and all others (political or military), are the consequences of the failing economy.
One reason that probably played a part was the generalization of roman citizenship after 212. Up to then gaining citizenship was a long and difficult process. Once most were citizens their relationship to Rome changed. A general no longer needed to march on Rome itself to claim the status of emperor. He only needed to control a large territory. Citizenship made most equal but at the same time it reduced the level of attachment people felt for Rome itself.
Maybe you should make some videos about combat, why they lost territories so fast, weren't cities walled, ready to withstand long sieges etc, were there uprisings in territories that germanic tribes occupied etc...
Great video. However i see lack of two more very important reasons. Climate change wich cause migrations of barbarians, economic and demographic weakness of Empire and social changes which also cause economic and demographic weakness. In times of greatness, Rome society was based on free citizens who served in legions. In 5th century majority of Empire's population were colonus (something like middle ages peasants). Wealthy and influential landowners doesn't want to lose their labor by the draft of their colonus to the military. Landowners were responsible for some administrative tasks like tax collecting which helped them to avoid draft of their colonus. Constant civil wars, and climate changes speed up disadvantageous social changes and as result in 5th century Rome has trouble to rebuild their legion after bloodshed of civil wars.
Thank you for the video. In my opinion. My number one reason why the Empire fell was because of the lack of unity within the Roman Empire. My number two would be the succession system.
I know that the Romans hated kingship. But they allowed that the cloud their minds. Before even the first coup launched by the military, the Roman Senate should have adopt the Athenian democracy and even improve upon it in order to find the candidates for the seat as the new Augustus. So the point is why they never adopted such a system before Severus launched his military coup or even before Nero came to powers?
The aristocracy (the old landowner class) would never have allowed it. Look how they used wealthy Plebs to destroy the Pleb Tribune system from within.
@@mickvonbornemann3824 Ah, the snobby wealthy elites. The major problem of every society in every period of humanity's history. This is why the word "eat the riches" existed in the first place.
The most important reason that was mentioned in this video, which is the lack of succession method which led to constant civil war, is in my opinion at the same time one of the biggest reasons the empire lasted as long as it did. China had imperial rule with clear succession system (Father --> son) for almost 2000 years and no dynasty ever made it past 300 year mark. Roman might lack a succession system but it also meant who is competent enough would usually take the throne, either really good as a military commander or is a beloved ruler. Chine on the other hand, although the clear succession system arguably maintained the stability at times, the succession system also made whoever was the emperor almost untouchable, and it is more than often that the emperor who succeeded the throne is an unfit ruler who never had the benefit and wellbeing of his people at his best interest, this would generally do more harm than good to the country as a whole. Fast forward 2000 years this theory still has its merit, China, though more 'stable', its leader generally wouldnt care too much about his people because they were usually untouchable by the people. Western countries, on the other hand, with democracy which tracing back to ancient roman empire, could be violent or have protests from time to time, their leaders would generally appear to be more concerned and careful about what they do to the country. Just my observation, could be very wrong though lol
I love your list. Still, I would love to add two causes, very much correlated one another: the end of expansion of frontiers and the decreasing power of the Senate. Let's take the first argument from a different perspective, way back in time. Rome had a problem with monarchic power from the beginning. They hated tyrants with absolute power (look at the tales about the last king of Rome) and did everything they could to not have to deal with the same problem again. For that reason the system of consulship was created: there must be two leaders, they must reign only one year and their power is granted and overlooked by the Senate. This made three things possible: 1) Nobody could gain excessive powers and use them at will 2) The Senate had a certain authority over the consul, which meant he could not act against the interest of the city of Rome for personal gains 3) Since the mos maiorum was still relevant, the consuls would try to obtain the greatest amount of honor they could in the short period they were given. This dynamic made Rome a belligerant state for almost the entire period of the Republic. At the same time, the constant 'research' for enemies to defeat had two good related consequences: 1) Rome's economy would thrive in response to the mobilitation of the army and eventual victories; 2) The lust for power was diverted from a political power to a military power. This made the ambitious men of Rome to fight for success and recognition away from the city itself (so they could not build a stable power for themselves). This meant no civil wars, no power struggles, no tyrants and more money for the state. In a single word, stabilty. The same moment Gaius Marius reformed the army, this delicate equilibrium broke, or at least, it began to break. After the marian reform, as proved by Sulla with the first march on Rome, the previous dynamic was reversed: now you can seize your political power with your military power. Still, Roman tradition of expansion limited the probability of this event to happen: why would you march on your same people when you can just crush somebody else? When suitable land to conquer began to disappear, troubles started to raise: the only way to get power was taking down the Emperor. And, obviously, this creates instability. This concludes my first point. Second point: the power of the Senate was the main reason the Republic and the early Empire worked. You needed the Senate to validate your position. With a strong Senate, emperors needed to be careful, they needed to please and "serve" the Senate when possible ( if I'm not wrong, the Emperor initially was granted his powers by the Senate). The Senate could give you power, so the Senate itself was valuable and influent. As more and more people became suitable for the position of senator, the less was the prestigie of the organisation itself: now, with unlimited power in their hands and nobody on their way, emperors had freedom over Rome. A dangerous freedom. This made the entire state to rely on the ability of a single man as leader: this could not work in the long run.
This is a fascinating question and Marioianus treats it very well as he does in all his presentations. But another great question is how it lasted so long, longer than any other political entity in the West by far. It’s almost like driving a car 2 million miles and wondering why it didn’t last.
I would argue that the debasement of the Roman currency was the major contributing factor to the fall, it itself was a large contributor to many of the points outlined in the video, for example the lack of manpower I mean why would you risk your life for currency that was practically worthless when you could find a job that was far less risky for the same worthless currency? The lack of meaningful funds for labor to facilitate upkeep of military/civil facilities. The fall of trade value and exchange for Roman goods versus outside goods (mainly from India and is something you should look into if anything India heavily contributed to the debasement alone, we can see this in the large amount of Roman coinage found within the country). The fracturing of the empire and the western half being naturally poorer and if you have a already poor nation with a worthless currency that is a recipe for disaster. Higher taxation as a result of the debasement jumping by double digit percentiles at a time in order to make up the revenue for the empire to function properly, which bread discontent within the populace and left them poorer as a result and lead to hoarding of more valuable older currency and thus lead to a decrease in commercial activity. Worthless currency leading to cheaper and cheaper arms being procured for the military that could be mass produced quickly in order to outfit the legions, rather than intricate and well produced arms that made the legions the powerhouse they once were. Suffice to say I think the two major factors are economic and political with the former representing the aforementioned points and the latter being the succession issue which could have been dealt with in one of two ways. One being the clear line of succession codified in law, which adoption would have been the best bet for that rather than lineage, as it would have put the precedent for hopeful emperors to achieve and excel in order to be recognized as a candidate for adoption. And inclusion to or alternatively a division of power similar to the tetrarchy, but divided far more so power was not concentrated so heavily in a few hands and should a upstart take up arms the others could act to put him down. I believe that distribution should go a little like this with imperial hopefuls taking control of a single region and those should be, Italy, Gaul, Britain, Iberia, Northwestern Africa, Northeastern Africa, the Levant, Anatolia, the Balkans and Dacia if it was still in the empire, with five administrative capitals to respond to threats which would be Antioch, Constantinople, Aquincum, Eburacum and either Augusta Treverorum or Mogontiacum.
So the dissipation of the military through constant civil wars undermined their ability to defend themselves from external enemies? Not the only reason but one they could not survive
You know, the general effect of Christianity was undoubtedly to sap the Roman Stoicism, though that had long since been deflated by the riches obtained through the latifundia. There is also the problem that Roman autocracy tended to alienate distant ruled populations (most especially in Judaea, for instance, but in spots throughout the Empire, East as well as West). That said, once Christianity had been adopted, it would have made great sense for Romans to FULLY adopt it as that faith actually would stimulate a return to Stoicism. no that is not a paradox, as the full faith demands rigorous moral order, which was typical of early Republican Rome but had declined under the Empire. Properly implemented, Christianity would have mediated the power-mad struggles at the heart of the Roman government, perhaps have prevented the Magister Militum murders you suggested, and then been a tool for integrating the advancing pagan hordes. Missionaries were dispatched but only sporadically. Had that been a wider effort, and had it been unified as opposed to the Arrian effort competing with the Great Church effort, it is entirely possible that the Goths, etc., could have been peacefully Romanized. I note that the internal wars had helped depopulate the core and one good reason to encourage massive immigration is to strengthen the genetic core of the general population. Fresh blood in the best sense of the word. Christianity could have been a strength, not a weakness, but the conservative retention of the long-dead pagan 'faith' blunted this and the result was a length-wise fracture in the fundamental belief system in the Empire. Just one more crack in the Roman unity. Clearly, the problems were manifold. As experienced, Christianity caused problems by splitting the people along yet another vector, but Rome's error was to fight this coming faith rather than fully embracing it. Christians aren't necessarily pacifist and by the way, for a potential recruit to declare for Christianity could as easily get him tortured and killed for certain rather than being enrolled and maybe surviving the wars. Rational decisions can be made by peasants, believe it or not.
Empires arise to accomplish some purpose. That purpose accomplished, they lose focus and continue on more by inertia than the original impulse that created them. This leads to a structure that no longer serves a current purpose. People lose interest in preserving the structure for the structure's sake, and the empire loses strength and eventually is replaced. It's the same pattern over and over throughout history and people refuse to accept it and instead look for "10 reasons it ended." The Roman Empire, in life terms, simply got old and died.
I only heard it from author so far that Christianity contributed to the fall in a very particular way as well: Christian identity gradually started to overwrite the Roman identity in many cases (or at least became the primary identity for the individual). People started to feel more attached to the Church than to the state, the community started to be organized around the local spiritual leadership more than the civil stewards (who were growing more and more distant from actually doing civic duties). It was partly due to the fact that unlike the Greco-Roman pagan religion, the new Christianity provided a strong sense of community and a promise of a better life after this one that many people craved in that turbulent period. The cultural distinction between the Romans and Barbarians faded. With Christian identity on the rise, and Christianity spreading across the border, the border areas of the empire became a very blurred and grey area where Christian Romans of barbarian descent fought fellow Christian barbarians protecting an empire that was mostly present only in name. Not only this, but the general "social contract" of the people of the empire was that the legions protects the provinces, the provinces pay taxes, the empire pays the legions, but since borderland provinces were more and more attached culturally to the neighboring Christian "barbarians" than the distant Rome (which as mentioned in the video, was reluctant to generally accept Christianism), the will to pay taxes and give bodies to the legions was ever decreasing. In many cases, it is more accurate to talk about the "fading" of the Western Empire than the "fall" of it.
What surprises me is that Rome didn't build a formidable wall in the north of the Italian peninsula. I mean yeah it looks obvious in retrospect and "how could they foresee such massive invasions"... But they were invaded a few times, by the Celts and by the Carthaginians, through the north of the peninsula. So a ginormous complex of walls and ditches and fortresses to the north of Medialanum, some distance from the Alps, would have made perfect sense. I'm sure the Romans knew perfectly well that the Alps themselves were not perfect defenses.
The plagues surely have to bear their share of the blame. And regardless of any disputes about Christianity, the old Republican virtues that had sustained the first century of the Empire -- such things always take long to disintegrate -- were absent when Rome most needed them later on -- as such virtues always are under absolute rule. A lesson our time, marching headlong to a total-computer-surveilled bureaucratic and 'activist'-driven absolutism, would do well to consider (but probably won't, at least not enough of us)
Exelent video,keep the good work. But,naming this video should be The Fall of the West R.Emp,becouse the Empire still existed in the East,named Eastern Roman Empire (the name Byzantine Empire is a modern slang,probably used by wastern historians to justify Latin and Crusader sack and religius difrenses between the two)
I would submit the end of Republican/Senate rule (democracy?) was also a contributing factor that led to rule by Emperors - so perhaps Julius Caesar crowning himself emperor might feature on this list since it started Rome down the path to ruin. It took so long for the Empire to collapse because of how strong it was economically and militarily and as you point out in your video it took many different cataclysmic events to bring it down - what a shame.
With the transformation of the Roman army into an army that was mostly made up of non-romans " Italians" , especially at the leadership level, the army no longer had a national feeling or a sense of belonging to the empire, and the only concern of its generals was power. Therefore, military coups and civil wars between generals for power increased, which greatly weakened the empire
The Eastern Roman Empire was a cheap copy of the OG United Roman Empire. They just somehow managed to survive and failed to achieve anything spectacular. Time and time again they were on verge of collapse and somehow managed to avert the disaster. Over the time also Roman influence waned and it became more of a Greek Empire. So yes Roman Empire collapsed in 476
@@anmolkumarsharma5627 The eastern Roman empire wasn't a copy it was the continuation of the Roman empire and how can the Roman influence wane when it was 100% Roman till 1453 Also what do you mean by Greek empire ?
first off, maiorianus actually said that, literally, but focused on the West. I've criticized him in another post for failing to notice that the Goths who invaded the West were Arian Christians and also to have failed to notice that Christianity of itself was not the cause, nor contributory but was part of the solution which Rome failed to sufficiently embrace. The division of the people into prior Roman belief and emergent Christian belief was really the problem, just adding one more vector for legions to square off against each other about,
The Arabs and the Turks were formidable, but sporadic enemies of the Eastern Roman Empire. The constant enemy was Bulgaria. The longest peace was 30 years. Usually, every 6-7 years there would be problems on the border with Bulgaria. And that continued from 680 till 1393.
Fantastic video, but if you ask me you forgot the core reason: the failure of Rome's cultural habita in the late Republic. This led directly to the dissintegration in political succession which created Caesar, and the hard attempts at enforced conservatism expressed by Augustus. Which failed to bring back thw spirit of Rome, and enabled the ad-hoc structure you gave the final blame for. At least in my analysis.
The main failure of Rome was due to the constant civil wars & succession wars/crisises. These happened basically all the time, & many at the same time & overlapped. Basically virtually all the most destructive wars in the 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries were civil wars. Also in the christian era succession law can basically be summed up as success implies’ god’s favour. This was a disaster for Rome. The fact is during those few small periods when they’re was no succession crisis, professional Roman troops had absolutely no problem defeating rebellious ethnic breakouts & barbarian invasions. But over time this continued internal bickering took it’s toll as it became more toxic with every year.
I can't understand people who genuinely believe something as superficial as homosexuality was one of the causes, let alone a leading one for the fall of the Roman Empire.
I have the impression that the participation in the Roman army was almost always in the process of being outsourced further and further from the center. Italians had full rights to Roman citizenship some time after 100BC, and yet even in the first century AD, Italians were only really a major constituent part of the army in the form of the praetorian guard. There is the famous "Dalmatian and Pannonia" as recruiting grounds for the empire relatively early. It seems to me that as the empire grew bigger, there was less and less identifying yourself as a proud Roman, since it was pretty much the whole known world. On a day-to-day basis, there wouldn't have been anyone to compare and contrast yourself with,. In the Republican period there were various other comparable states that were rivals to Rome, but later on, other than the Persians, it would have mostly been amorphous barbarian tribes. I would think that if Christianity could be responsible for the fall in the empire in any way, it would have reduced the foreignness of invading barbarian tribes who were already Christian. I am not sure if any of the tribes that eventually had great and ultimate success against the Romans were not already Christian. The Huns were ultimately didn't stay after Attilia died. Most of the Goths were already Christian. I suppose to sum up, ultimately Romans didn't really identify as one people in a primary and strong sense.
Its why I feel like my country; India is also not on a good path compared to SEA nations, we just lack civic sense.. there is an absolute lack of civic sense in our nation, people only care about what they do and not how it might affect their neighbours or family. Ive seen people in my neighbourhood pour used cooking oil down the road because they cant be bothered for the waste collection crew to come every week, its actually pathetic. Germany, Japan, Singapore all these nations poor as all hell after war/ independence but because of the citizen's attitude they have the greatest stories, I guess germany is faltering in that too.
The western empire had the short end of the stick, always. Both in population size, food production and economic development, it was not gonna turn out fine for them. Heck, even threat wise, the eastern roman empire had to deal with a consolidated empire that didnt have much reason to expand, it was already rich as well and facing its own issues. The western roman empire had barbarians with nothing to lose with invading rome, and much to lose with staying around germany.
No estoy de acuerdo en atribuirle al cristianismo (religión católica) tanta culpa en la caída del Imperio romano. Además, la opinión académica es que ya había un declive natalicio entre los romanos cuando el cristianismo se volvió la religión oficial del imperio. No hay que olvidar el contexto social y cultural en que se desarrolló el cristianismo temprano.
Further, was it not the case that the Goths invading Italy were already Christians? Granted they were Arians, but that only meant they held a variant of the Faith, not that they were still pagani as the term would have gone in that age (not quite what we mean today). So if they were all that thoroughgoingly violent, why would it be the case that Christianity must necessarily be a debilitant against military might or intention? If we need an example of it near that age, let us consider Belisarius, though he is in the next century beyond the end of the fully-configured Western Empire. I must contend that the problem for Rome was that she refused to make up her mind as to what moral order she would pursue and this was the reason Christianity didn't help, not that it couldn't have. We have only to consider our present circumstance to recognize that having a divided moral order is the problem not what competing belief systems might each proclaim. Though to the degree that the one utterly contradicts the other does exacerbate the problem and drive it to dire consequences all the sooner. A fate we're about to find out about for ourselves.
Also the US founding faters even admitted it and said they r the new Rome to bring back the greek way of thinking and found it a shame americans dis not know Greek. Since they admitted the constirjion is oy for a cjeistian people since it does not work for others if they comei. Which is why they had laws about that too. Many typos but will fix later. Lol
I can't help thinking that, if your previous video had put the blame for the Fall squarely on Christianity and 'toxic masculinity,' that that copyright claim would never have been filed!
Not only that, but this video is causing men to think even MORE about the Roman Empire, thus increasing the masculine toxicity in the population, which undoubtedly also causes climate change.
With the amount of civil wars throughout Roman history it’s almost tragic that an increasingly Christian empire did not model itself more after Jesus than Romulus. Romans clearly caused the fall of the Roman Empire.
You have to go back to Octavian he stayed in office too long ten to twenty years at most would have been better and a system using the old two counsel the office by election maybe a modified presidential with a chief counsel and vice-counsel The worst would be assassinations and place coupes. Another idea is to abandon North Africa and concentrate on Europe
Christianity didn't take over the western part of the Roman empire during Theodosius or under orher emperors It was imposed by the barbarian kingdoms that emerged after the fall of Rome
Do you mean that the invading Arian Goths imposed their version on the Catholic Christianity already widely accepted? If so, then you've got a point but then have to contend with the reality that Arianism withered away under the strict logic of Chalcedonic Christianity, the bedrock of both Orthodoxy and Catholicism both of which thrived in their respective spheres of influence. That difference was a linguistic one, actually, as the Greek originals did not translate well into Latin and the deep influence of Augustine, who did not know any Greek, meant that the western version drifted from the eastern, ultimately ending the Great Schism which fully occurred in the fourteenth century after centuries of partial implementation,.
@@paulkelly2701 some so called barbarians were Catholic such as the Burgundians, and the Franks were allegedly no Christian before Clovis, but they were a smaller elite group and I suspect many were Arians. When the Gothic elite wanted to convert, they turned to eastern Christianity from Constantinople which was Catholic then. Some resisted. See the Passion of St Saba.
@@Joanna-il2ur Good call, but you have the relationship backward: all Great Church Christians were then Orthodox. Catholicism arose under the errors of Augustine and the pressure of the Arians. This is why the filioque was adopted in the West: to end the notion that Christ was a creature, the salient feature of Arianism. As the East never accepted the notion, there was never a need to invent new theology about it. In the West, it ended up causing either Modalism or Ditheism and was thus rejected by the Christian East. That's what caused the eventual schism, along with the insistence by the Roman Patriarch that, as Pope of the senior Patriarchate, that entitled him to rule over all Christians. This was a violation of the Councils to which his Church had already subscribed and amounted to open heresy. It could have been avoided, but nobody in the east wanted to speak Latin and nobody in the west wanted to speak Greek and the difference there helped the confusion to proliferate. And this also contributed to the lack of enthusiasm of either side to come to other's aid. Oops. Here comes the Fall of the Empires. Hope this helps.
@@Joanna-il2urMost of the population in Hispania was already Chalcedonian. The Suebi King Rechilar was the first to convert to Chalcedonian from Arianism in the late 5th century
I think there were many tributary causes, but the main cause was the unsuitable political system, which led to the many civil wars that drained the wealth and manpower of the empire. In turn, this led to currency debasement, dependency upon mercenaries and foederatii, and the incremental diminishment of the emperor's authority. Even if Majorian had succeeded in uniting the Western Roman Empire, I think that its stability would have largely depended upon the force of his personality, meaning that a weaker successor could have seen the empire slip through his fingers. Christianity did erode the warlike values of the Romans, but I see Christianity as more of a correlation than a causation, feeding upon the rotting carcass of the empire and glorifying death as a passage to a better world.
I suggest you consult an orthodox priest about that last point. And I might note that death was in fact already heavily glorified in Roman pagan propaganda: 'How glorious it is to suffer death for the benefit of the nation' is a pagan slogan, not a Christian one. And if the Goths were themselves Christian, how does that square with a notion of total Christian pacifism as some kind of solvent for national ability to rise and defend itself?
@@paulkelly2701 The Romans glorified death in battle in service of the empire, personal honour and of civilisation; the Christians glorified it in service of an autocratic god and in pursuit of eternal life. War for its own sake was and still is condemned by Christianity, though you raise a good point about the paradox of the Goths adopting Christianity. I have no idea as to how this affected their martial spirit and civilisational capacity. However, I do know that Rome was foolish to forsake its traditions and identity in favour of a religion that increasingly sought secessionist powers and/or autonomy for itself - a factor, I think, that may have cynically encouraged some migrating barbarian tribes to adopt Christianity.
@@cerdic6586You clearly speak from outside the Christian tradition. Do you suggest that God is somehow not authorized to rule that which He created? Do you suggest He does not transcend our consensus? You then speak of another god, which seems typical of those not educated in theology. And you err if you think the Romans gods He displaced were not themselves also autocratic. They were and were also pedantic, petty, self-dealing and vengeful. Many think this also applies to the Christian God, They err. He is not an ATM to dispense goodies to those who think to bribe Him. That is how idols work, not the true God. And, as I say, Christianity was not pacifist. Many soldiers effectively fought as Christians, and as we note, against other Christians. Rome failed because she both failed to suppress Christianity if that were possible nor did she fully embrace it as would have been advisable.
@@paulkelly2701 I speak as an atheist seeking to understand the political, sociological and philosophical implications of Christianity. You cannot explain the decline and fall of the Roman Empire via theology (except, perhaps, metaphysically; but then why bother to engage with non-Christians in historical debate?). I do not consider Christianity to be a pacifistic religion at all. In fact, it has been the most violent of all religions in history, if you consider how it condoned and sometimes spearheaded European colonialism. My point was that the alien values of Christianity sapped the traditional values of Rome that made her great. As did other values, such as cosmopolitanism. As for paganism being likewise autocratic, I think it was less so. Roman polytheism did not have an omniscient, omnipotent god who had special relationships with individuals. It had none of the puritanical social mores that early Christianity had. My original point was that Christianity was not a direct cause of Rome's decline, though it did exacerbate existing weaknesses (namely, social and political disunity that were causing civil wars and secessions/transitions to feudalism). You will probably downplay this, but Christian mobs and demagogues did play a large role in destabiling the empire in the 4th and 5th centuries.
@@cerdic6586 Closer examination has disproved the mobs suggestion. The Library was disassembled, not destroyed in one go. It was my point that Christians are not pacifists, so I wonder that you raise it again as a logical club. Christians make excellent troops and did so for the Empire. I hold that the problem was and is for the current empires, an unwillingness to adopt and conform to a single moral order, but to think that multiple orders could somehow coexist. This is nonsense and self=destructive. It was far more effective in destroying the Empire than is generally accepted, And this truth will be played out again over the next few years. Watch and see if it doesn't. and one element that plagues Christianity, as it has plagued every faith and belief system is the constant ability of people to look at the bits of an elephant, come away with a partial picture and then want to kill anyone who seems to see a different elephant, or worst, the whole Thing.
Rome was always going to fall, it was just a matter of when.Barbarian Immigration, bad economies, a civil service that went into business for itself, plagues, weak leaders all are reasons given.
That is an interesting theory, but I can't say that I agree with it. There are no real numbers about the prevalence of homosexuality in the Roman Empire, but it was probably very very low. I think below 1%. It cannot have had a big influence, because it stayed constantly low, and did not increase towards the late Empire, actually it went even down, because Christianity certainly did not view it in a favorable light. So I think that theory cannot hold up to scrutiny.
I do not agree with the Christianity part, and even if it was true the Romans traded their Empire for Eternal Salvation - a pretty easy choice in my opinion.
The pagan religion was much more pro war Christianity at the time made the population less and less willing to fight like the old pagans did. After all if it’s a sin to kill vs going to glory for the war god that’s a totally different motivation. It’s changed the entire outlook of the way the saw the world . It absolutely in my opinion was a reason they got weak. The idea of a warrior Christian wasn’t a thing then at all like the later years after the fall
Christianity hasn’t changed much in 2000 years. Evangelicals in the U.S. are on a quest to destroy this country. They’re nuts and they live their own lives in mental torment for a dark, delusional religion.
This is a re-upload of one of my first videos, because I received a copyright claim after 2 years. I changed some things, but the video is essentially the same. Funny, that now after 2 years, I find myself disagreeing on some topics with myself XD
🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus
Or become an official Maiorianus member on TH-cam: th-cam.com/users/Maiorianus461join
Who copyrighted it?
Welp, just watching it once more then to help restore the original view numbers. Perhaps do a follow-up on how your thinking evolved and where you disagree?
pax una triumphis innumeris potior
Actually not funny at all - it would be more surprising to be 100% in agreement after 2 years of learning, finding new sources etc.
_ pes 20 T numerol _ 20 sid swastika gamadion _ pythagoras tetractys hexagram sexagram 20 _ atlas _ atlast20 _ 048 even _ 1235679 odd _
Reason number 0. The economic system initially mostly reliant on exploitation of the new provinces, necessitating constant military conquest, as the older conquered territories were eventually becoming integral parts of the empire proper and were stopping to generate superprofits and to provide cheap slave labor. Thus the territory growing to the size far beyond of what could be efficiently governed from a single seat of power with the means of communication and travel of the time. The lack of the new territories which would be as profitable to conquer as the lands around the Mediterranean and the Gaul initially were. Resulting necessity to keep an enormous, non-productive and uncontrollable military force in attempts to preserve the integrity of the state, which made creation of a stable self-sustainable economy and political system impossible. All the rest were more or less the results rather than causes.
I like this reason the most. Almost looks like the Roman reached the peak of its efficiency their technology allowed before the third century. The rest was their struggle against its decline, spent all their resources doing it.
1st reason 3:13
2nd reason 6:13
3rd reason 8:37
4th reason 12:22
5th reason 14:24
6th reason 17:11
7th reason 19:39
8th reason 22:15
9th reason 25:39
10th reason 30:49
What does those numbers mean?
Great video. I especially liked the ranking system for the decline. As an American, I sadly see my own country repeating most of these mistakes, just on fast forward.
Could you please elaborate more on that and provide a few examples?
@creounity No. I'm not writing a college term paper. Anyone who's had a pulse for the past decade has watched the decline of the West in real time.
There is no way the USA can be invaded. Second USA is a republic and there is no way for a monarchy to arise. These times allow technology and self-awareness that were impossible in those times. Relax man.
There is no way the USA can be invaded. Second USA is a republic and there is no way for a monarchy to arise. These times allow technology and self-awareness that were impossible in those times. Relax man.
@BOIOLA08 there's no way the US can be invaded? We've already been invaded, numerous times in history. Secondly, it wasn't invasions that ended the Roman Empire, it was from within. You have zero grasp of history at all.
Excellent video, brother. May God bless you and I hope you keep making such high quality content for many years.
For me one of the biggest reasons for the fall is rampant corruption, which lead to senators and the praetorian guard being more loyal to their benefactors than the empire (And the emperor),. This leads the imperial treasury being drained leaving the empire short on money, which lead to higher taxes, which lead to more revolts and devaluation of the roman currency, which lead to economic recession and more armies revolting and so on.
Also the corruption lead to the death of many emperors who wished to crack down on corruption.
Christianity. Sure a lot of the military rosters were inflated, just as in modern afghan and Iraq so called military. The scheme goes back to Rome. The commander gets half your pay and you don't have to show up.
Excellent analysis (as we've come to expect!), although I feel, such was their catastrophic effect on populations, the successive waves of plagues really cannot to be overlooked.
I'd love to see Constantine I and Theodosius I "de-greated", as whatever achievements are attributed to both, each was responsible for at least one significant folly, seriously weakening the empire.
10:56 this wasn’t the Christian’s doing. Lack of motivation was due to inflation of worthless coins and a high chance of death (especially in the late empire). Them maiming themselves or choosing to watch games instead of defending themselves from foreigners was on them, not the Christians. Christianity may have played a small part in the fall, but it also played a part in extending it and preserving it after it fell.
Great video Imperator.
It's humbling to see how resilient Rome was. With near constant civil war it soldiered on for fifteen centuries...
Had either the adoption system or the Tetrarchy worked as intended, I'm willing to bet the Roman Empire would still exist, stronger than ever.
Yeah but the lowest 9 reasons here became nightmare fuel for reason number one - toxic elite conflict at the top.
This was your best video mariorianus, fantastic top 10 breakdown❤
Orestes and Romulus were arguing again. The young emperor's Greek was still nothing like fluent and he showed more interest for the new Iberian music fad than for anything remotely political, or, God forbid, legal. The heavy tapestry depicting the whole Mediterranean world he had adorned with wooden figurines of barbarian soldiers, each with their own typical attire and weapons. The Codex Theodosianus lay untouched on the table. As the father threatened to have the boy's toys removed, Romulus stormed out of the room, slamming the door so hard the tapestry went down on a lamp and caught fire. That's how it happened.
Great video. Very well put together, and hard to argue about your conclusions.
I've played most games of the Civilization series and I find that my Empires always seem to decline in the modern era, not because of any in-game reason but because I tend to get bored, there's not much more to research and I stop caring about diplomacy and whether or not I win or lose wars.
I'm not saying the Roman Empire fell in the same way but an Empire's populace losing interest in their Empire or the values it promoted is a real phenomenon that can contribute to decline.
This is why always leaned against being warlike in Civilization. I instead made sure that the faith of the people was unified behind a belief system that was both rational and transcendent. This answers both essential questions and motivates a firm support for the culture. Just being warlike does get boring and leads inevitably to enemies joining up against and defeating one.
I played the Civilization game series also and I am still a big fan of Civilization 5 ( I still play this game continously since 10 years and is not getting boring.)
I always play only with Conquering victory goal (but I mainly build on strong defense and a big empire with many cities, to dominate, not aggressive).
When I am sure, that I reached a status of very strong dominance, to have much more points and realm, than the hostile AI-Players, I just declare my victory and stop the game and restart. Above a certain point, when your victory is sure, it would be a boring waste of time to play. Just do not do it ! Feel free to stop and restart.
I have one tip for you, what I found interesting and give some "spice" to the game. I always create 2-Player teams. Me and 1 permanent AI-Ally against other independent, AI-2-er Teams. This is interesting, how you help your ally (that can not betray you) and work together.
Its true, that we can learn a lot of things about the real history mechanisms when we play such kind of games, but I do not believe, that your comparison between the late phase of the game is fitting to the reasons, why the Roman Empire collapsed.
As I was a child, I was asking myself, how did this collapse happened and especially, I was wondering, how the majority of the "normal" citizens, gave up their great historical achievement, to have a republic and NOT a kingdom. How so many people were ready to support Julius Cesar to get to power instead of the senate.
Later, I read in a book a pretty good answer. Because the elites of Rome got so corrupted and the whole system of the state got so corrupted in any way, that many people got totally disconnected from the statehood and from the leadership. The people felt betrayed and exploited by the elites, represented by the senate and their allies.
This lead to thinking, that a good, strong, smart and honest roman, like Julius Cesar, would be better, than keep the elites in power and let them ruin the state and the lives of the citizens more and more. But, to that time I read about this, more than 30 years ago, I was not really able to imagine this. This was to abstract for me.
TODAY I see it clearly, how this happened because almost the same is happening today in the western world. A great and fast decline. Spreading of corruption in the state. The citizens got betrayed again badly by the current leadership in many countries (Germany, USA, etc.) and the elites lost their connection to a big part of the citizens, they lost their connection even to the reality, they lost their connection the to truth and they lost their connection to the country (no more real love to the country, the elites only follow international groups of interests to gain more power and wealth.) More and more people are left behind and they are totally sick all of this. if today someone with the quality of Julius Cesar would come, many would support him against the government. Today, in many western countries, many people hate the own government and their rotten morale "values" more, than they hate external enemies.
Apparently I play Civ differently to most people. I see a lot of players seeking to build their empires as efficiently as possible - they know that after a certain number of turns, they can research this, or build X new unit to capture enemy cities by turn Y but I never really found that way of playing fun.
I don't actually play to necessarily win, I play to roleplay being a civilization and things going wrong can be just as entertaining to me. I heavily modded Civ4 to add 200% more units and buildings, changed some gameplay mechanics and made the game run as slowly as possible (I hated it when a new unit became available to me then already became obsolete a few turns later). One of the best games I played, lasted for months, where I built a Classical era Roman style empire, but instead of declining, it grew by the industrial era to something like the global British Empire. Then just like in the real world, huge wars happened and it started to fall apart by the modern era, the whole world order changed with new countries rising, then everything became unusually peaceful in the future era (I added new tech) where the only conflict was space-ship building.@@janostoth4315
Excelent video! Great quality!
I had a book on the subject a few decades ago. I loaned it to a relative who never gave it back. The book boiled down the fall of the Western Roman Empire down to one word “disunity”. The many ruinous civil wars, religious strife, not only Christian vs pagan but among various Christian sects such as Aryans vs Catholics vs Orthodox.
Do you remember the name of the book?
The Roman decadence is not a disproven theory. It is very well known fact that a weakening of culture standards creates a soft underbelly leaving any person country or empire vulnerable. It very much should be in the conversation when talking about the many reasons why Rome gradually declined.
Loved the video!! Good job !
Great video!
Thanks To This Magnificent Vídeo.
Very good video.
Quality content as always
The more important and sad part is not the fall of the Empire, but that it wasn't able to be reunited. I think the comparisons with China are very telling.
While the is an Antiquity to Antiquity, and Qin Shi Huang Di labelled himself after someone who allegedly had been the first unifier, 2500 years before him, we can be quite certain that the Han Dynasty was really the first to impose centralisation. And the stories of these 2 states go in parallel quite well - you have the crysis of the late republic, and you have Wang Mang; you have the Crysis of the 3rd Century, and you have the 3 Kingdoms Period.
If anything, China seemed less fortunate, and the fall of Jin, the failed attempts of Eastern Jin to reunify the country, these preceed the fall of the Western Roman Empire and Belisarius' campaigns by a couple centuries.
What followed there was very very similar to early Medieval Europe. But after 300 years of mess, the Sui somehow managed to bring everything back together. That is what Europe missed on - the Franks, maybe, being able to reunite the whole Empire.
Had they done so, or had the Byzantines not been stopped by plague and arab expansions a couple centuries earlier, we would probably still see ourselves as Romans to this day.
Again, in China, after that fortunate reunification, you had the golden age of Tang, then a short messy period, and quick reunification again. In the 1300, in the Romance of thw 3 Kingdoms, written a millenia after the events, the author felt it was appropriate to start with the famous line: "the kingdom, long united, must divide; long divided, must unite".
It is not the Fall that mattered most, but the failure to reunify, like they had done before on a couple of ocassions. Whether we blame it on the misfortune of Justinian's Plague, or the rise of the arabs, or the Franks splitting themselves up on purpose... That is the tragedy. And it's the difference between Europe being a "continent" and China being a "country".
I agree with you because Europe is a continent while china is a country making it easier to unify. While the Romans struggled at times to keep three continents unified under one state for thousands of years. Which shows Romes durability and survivable aspect to show to this day.
Quite notes: research the natural disaster of 536 AD, remember the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204 and consider that the East was essentially Monophysite, rejecting Chalcedon, thus laying the groundwork for the Islamic invasion and apparent ease of conquest (the people already could accept Allah as Muhammad defined Him).
@@gac7324 The thing is, the fact that China is now a unified country gives the impression that it was the obvious outcome, but it really wasn't. For most of its history, more people lived there than in all of Europe, North Africa and Middle East combined; and if you look at it closely you see how huge it really is.
A sense of unified Chinese-ness is Historically as likely (i would argue even less likely) than us still having a sense of common Roman...ity.
Big empires will break up eventually. The tragedy is that our ancestors were unable to reunite it. And now it is maybe way too late. Which is why we talk so much about the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, and the Fall of Constantinople - we are haunted by the fact that we were not able to rectify these events.
There is a reason why late Roman soldiers looked in many ways the same as Germanic warriors. Mainly because they were Germanic warriors and it was more practical to have them outfitted and fight in their traditional ways.
@chripianflopez You make a point there. Would be interesting to know if chainmail was cheaper than lorica segmentata.
Also, how standardized was the late equipment compared to the "classic" one.
Great video
1500 years and it still hurts
Very good video
Sehr Informativ!
This was another WOW learning experience for me. This summary is very logical and well organized. It certainly undermines the Gibbon decadence theory. I would love to see an update including the evolved thinking of our host. Sadly in today's USA, we have warring factions within our own government driven by ego needs. IMHO, this is greatly diminishing the power of America and will be a major contributor to the destabilization of the post WWII world order........and we are going down very fast, considering Ukraine, threats from China and Iran, plus the turmoil in the Middle East.
I'm not sure about Christianity, it was once thought it had "softened" the spirit of the Romans but it's not like it made the emperors become saints or stopped people from fighting wars, also most of the barbarian tribes that invaded Rome were already christians too by the 5th century. It's also possible instead that having one only religion strenghtened the empire by making the citizen more united and the Church being a well organized institution and present everywhere took some of the administration duties thus lightening the workload on the state administration.
About economy I'm sure the end of the "Roman warm period" and the approaching of the "little ice age of late antiquity" played a huge role in the dimishing of the economic and military strenght of both the western and eastern Roman Empires, an agrarian society thrives with a warm weather.
I agree with your points, brother. I dissent somewhat from the contention that the Empire actually did have one faith. I have studied the religious history of the times and have found that the Faith was only the Great Church version for long stretches throughout the Empire period. This was true particularly in the East, which eventually fragmented altogether and was why the Roman Empire there regularly was confined as the less-Catholic elements broke away and were taken by the encroaching empires to the East. In the West, the core faith did seem to be unified but, as our author notes, it was the government which rotted away from within. Finally, the Christianity of the Goths was Arian, which meant they could have thought of themselves as ridding the West of the noxious Catholics holding to that silly proposition that the one Person of the Christ was eternally God in one nature and temporally Man in His other. Clearly, the Great Church definition at Chalcedon won out overall, but is still not accepted in wide swaths of the Middle East (to the extent that Christianity exists there at all, of course). Thus, even setting aside the remains of original Roman belief, there was actually no time when Rome completely believed in one faith.
Also, Constantine really changed Christianity and essentially combined it with cult of sol invictus and Mithrasism it was actually a net positive for the empire.
@@paulkelly2701 Absolutely true, I almost forgot how controversies about Christian doctrine plagued Europe in general for almost 1300 years after Constantine
@@ale_s45 And I don't forget the many varieties of atheism now proliferating. No belief system can be free of them and especially not now when individual insight seems to be considered the ne plus ultra of thought.
@@daveweiss5647 Not true at all. He merely presided and no such synthesis was done. It is a modern canard to suggest otherwise. Of course, you have read all the canons of Nicaea, yes? If not, then I recommend you do so. You will find that sol invictus was an invention after Constantine's time and Mithraism simply a soldier faith which grew alongside Christianity, as did Gnosticism.
You should re release more of your old videos, your production quality has increased markedly and it would really help your channel and be cool to see them with the higher quality.
I think the degeneracy argument this that many of these problems are caused by degeneracy.
Or at least would have been solved without the degeneracy.
Especially these betrayals are a function of selfishness at the expense of quality.
"it should also be noted that the east had the richer provinces"
Since Adam Smith's the wealth of nations we know how to be rich: allow people to do good.
But for some reason degenerates cannot help themselves to strangle their economies.
Like the west is doing now, supposedly for diversity and climate, they're chosing poverty.
I'm surprised disease outbreaks weren't on this list.
I was gonna say. Diseases must've affected Romans and barbarians quite differently. And the Roman practice of public baths with lukewarm cess pools and sharing of the butt wipes.. yuck.
I think the "Use the Army to take charge" pattern started with Caesar crossing the Rubicon, but it didn't end there. There had been leaders who used mobs or violence to get their way even before that. They never did have a stable transfer of power mechanism.
The funny thing is that the early to mid Republic did have stable transfers of power.
It's even older than Caesar, Sulla was the first to violate the holy perimeter of Rome with his legions, it was so unthinkable that he allegedly excused his officers from joining him.
It was a long and slow decline and fall that began when ratings began to drop in the second season. New season with a new emperor, Tiberius, did not help. Plainly, the public was growing bored with both the Roman Empire and the Claudians.
Roman Empire for life
I was gonna say, „ooo I like the way you’re narrating this new video.“ ups haha
The island of Britain has been free of major invasions or Civil Wars since 1746 - this was one of the reasons why Britain achieved greatness. The strange combination of a ceremonial monarchy, like that of Japan, and a Parliamentary system that allowed the great families to compete for power (till 1832 powerful landed families controlled most seats in the House of Commons) without having to face each other on the field of battle - rather like Republican Rome before the conflict between the Populares and Optimates. But then the British landed families relied on rent paying tenants - rather than slave worked estates. Even during the Industrial Revolution the number of people working in farming actually went UP (right till after the 1851 census) - it was the extra people (the births who would have otherwise have died) who went to the towns to work in factories.
I wanted to make a video about the end of the Roman Empire and the decline of imperial authority myself, but now I fell quite discouraged, because this video already was so good... 😭
Can you please do a video on Marcellinus of dalmatia? I want to know more about him.
Great voice!
Its an excellent video, but what I found as a big mistake that you focus on political and military, but to wage war what you need the most is money. The emperors most of the time raised the taxes and the limitation on the economy. I would say that would cause most of the points that you mention as political problems. When taxes are high, people has shorter view of the future because of the the hardships and that reduces the amount of children they have (just look around today). They invest less into things and there is less trade. You even mention in other videos that after the fall of the empire, most of the exroman cities boomed economically, because the heavy tax burdens and regulations were gone. Ah and the rampant corruption that came from centralized political powers.
I would say economy was the biggest issue and all others (political or military), are the consequences of the failing economy.
One reason that probably played a part was the generalization of roman citizenship after 212. Up to then gaining citizenship was a long and difficult process. Once most were citizens their relationship to Rome changed. A general no longer needed to march on Rome itself to claim the status of emperor. He only needed to control a large territory. Citizenship made most equal but at the same time it reduced the level of attachment people felt for Rome itself.
Maybe you should make some videos about combat, why they lost territories so fast, weren't cities walled, ready to withstand long sieges etc, were there uprisings in territories that germanic tribes occupied etc...
Great video. However i see lack of two more very important reasons. Climate change wich cause migrations of barbarians, economic and demographic weakness of Empire and social changes which also cause economic and demographic weakness. In times of greatness, Rome society was based on free citizens who served in legions. In 5th century majority of Empire's population were colonus (something like middle ages peasants). Wealthy and influential landowners doesn't want to lose their labor by the draft of their colonus to the military. Landowners were responsible for some administrative tasks like tax collecting which helped them to avoid draft of their colonus. Constant civil wars, and climate changes speed up disadvantageous social changes and as result in 5th century Rome has trouble to rebuild their legion after bloodshed of civil wars.
Thank you for the video. In my opinion. My number one reason why the Empire fell was because of the lack of unity within the Roman Empire. My number two would be the succession system.
I know that the Romans hated kingship. But they allowed that the cloud their minds. Before even the first coup launched by the military, the Roman Senate should have adopt the Athenian democracy and even improve upon it in order to find the candidates for the seat as the new Augustus. So the point is why they never adopted such a system before Severus launched his military coup or even before Nero came to powers?
The aristocracy (the old landowner class) would never have allowed it. Look how they used wealthy Plebs to destroy the Pleb Tribune system from within.
@@mickvonbornemann3824 Ah, the snobby wealthy elites. The major problem of every society in every period of humanity's history. This is why the word "eat the riches" existed in the first place.
Can you make a video about when people stopped considering them self "Roman"
good video but i have a question Who is better varangian guards or praetorian guards in terms of combat?
The most important reason that was mentioned in this video, which is the lack of succession method which led to constant civil war, is in my opinion at the same time one of the biggest reasons the empire lasted as long as it did. China had imperial rule with clear succession system (Father --> son) for almost 2000 years and no dynasty ever made it past 300 year mark. Roman might lack a succession system but it also meant who is competent enough would usually take the throne, either really good as a military commander or is a beloved ruler. Chine on the other hand, although the clear succession system arguably maintained the stability at times, the succession system also made whoever was the emperor almost untouchable, and it is more than often that the emperor who succeeded the throne is an unfit ruler who never had the benefit and wellbeing of his people at his best interest, this would generally do more harm than good to the country as a whole.
Fast forward 2000 years this theory still has its merit, China, though more 'stable', its leader generally wouldnt care too much about his people because they were usually untouchable by the people. Western countries, on the other hand, with democracy which tracing back to ancient roman empire, could be violent or have protests from time to time, their leaders would generally appear to be more concerned and careful about what they do to the country.
Just my observation, could be very wrong though lol
I love your list. Still, I would love to add two causes, very much correlated one another: the end of expansion of frontiers and the decreasing power of the Senate.
Let's take the first argument from a different perspective, way back in time.
Rome had a problem with monarchic power from the beginning. They hated tyrants with absolute power (look at the tales about the last king of Rome) and did everything they could to not have to deal with the same problem again. For that reason the system of consulship was created: there must be two leaders, they must reign only one year and their power is granted and overlooked by the Senate. This made three things possible:
1) Nobody could gain excessive powers and use them at will
2) The Senate had a certain authority over the consul, which meant he could not act against the interest of the city of Rome for personal gains
3) Since the mos maiorum was still relevant, the consuls would try to obtain the greatest amount of honor they could in the short period they were given. This dynamic made Rome a belligerant state for almost the entire period of the Republic.
At the same time, the constant 'research' for enemies to defeat had two good related consequences:
1) Rome's economy would thrive in response to the mobilitation of the army and eventual victories;
2) The lust for power was diverted from a political power to a military power. This made the ambitious men of Rome to fight for success and recognition away from the city itself (so they could not build a stable power for themselves).
This meant no civil wars, no power struggles, no tyrants and more money for the state. In a single word, stabilty.
The same moment Gaius Marius reformed the army, this delicate equilibrium broke, or at least, it began to break. After the marian reform, as proved by Sulla with the first march on Rome, the previous dynamic was reversed: now you can seize your political power with your military power. Still, Roman tradition of expansion limited the probability of this event to happen: why would you march on your same people when you can just crush somebody else?
When suitable land to conquer began to disappear, troubles started to raise: the only way to get power was taking down the Emperor. And, obviously, this creates instability.
This concludes my first point.
Second point: the power of the Senate was the main reason the Republic and the early Empire worked. You needed the Senate to validate your position. With a strong Senate, emperors needed to be careful, they needed to please and "serve" the Senate when possible ( if I'm not wrong, the Emperor initially was granted his powers by the Senate).
The Senate could give you power, so the Senate itself was valuable and influent. As more and more people became suitable for the position of senator, the less was the prestigie of the organisation itself: now, with unlimited power in their hands and nobody on their way, emperors had freedom over Rome. A dangerous freedom. This made the entire state to rely on the ability of a single man as leader: this could not work in the long run.
What about lack of available gold and silver deposits?
What about the diminished influence of the Senate?
This is a fascinating question and Marioianus treats it very well as he does in all his presentations.
But another great question is how it lasted so long, longer than any other political entity in the West by far.
It’s almost like driving a car 2 million miles and wondering why it didn’t last.
quality video
I would argue that the debasement of the Roman currency was the major contributing factor to the fall, it itself was a large contributor to many of the points outlined in the video, for example the lack of manpower I mean why would you risk your life for currency that was practically worthless when you could find a job that was far less risky for the same worthless currency?
The lack of meaningful funds for labor to facilitate upkeep of military/civil facilities.
The fall of trade value and exchange for Roman goods versus outside goods (mainly from India and is something you should look into if anything India heavily contributed to the debasement alone, we can see this in the large amount of Roman coinage found within the country).
The fracturing of the empire and the western half being naturally poorer and if you have a already poor nation with a worthless currency that is a recipe for disaster.
Higher taxation as a result of the debasement jumping by double digit percentiles at a time in order to make up the revenue for the empire to function properly, which bread discontent within the populace and left them poorer as a result and lead to hoarding of more valuable older currency and thus lead to a decrease in commercial activity.
Worthless currency leading to cheaper and cheaper arms being procured for the military that could be mass produced quickly in order to outfit the legions, rather than intricate and well produced arms that made the legions the powerhouse they once were.
Suffice to say I think the two major factors are economic and political with the former representing the aforementioned points and the latter being the succession issue which could have been dealt with in one of two ways.
One being the clear line of succession codified in law, which adoption would have been the best bet for that rather than lineage, as it would have put the precedent for hopeful emperors to achieve and excel in order to be recognized as a candidate for adoption.
And inclusion to or alternatively a division of power similar to the tetrarchy, but divided far more so power was not concentrated so heavily in a few hands and should a upstart take up arms the others could act to put him down.
I believe that distribution should go a little like this with imperial hopefuls taking control of a single region and those should be, Italy, Gaul, Britain, Iberia, Northwestern Africa, Northeastern Africa, the Levant, Anatolia, the Balkans and Dacia if it was still in the empire, with five administrative capitals to respond to threats which would be Antioch, Constantinople, Aquincum, Eburacum and either Augusta Treverorum or Mogontiacum.
2:05 A decadence in standards…
Plagues and other natural disasters can also be added as a reason
So the dissipation of the military through constant civil wars undermined their ability to defend themselves from external enemies? Not the only reason but one they could not survive
What are the first 5 or 6 Main reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire ??? THNX
You know, the general effect of Christianity was undoubtedly to sap the Roman Stoicism, though that had long since been deflated by the riches obtained through the latifundia. There is also the problem that Roman autocracy tended to alienate distant ruled populations (most especially in Judaea, for instance, but in spots throughout the Empire, East as well as West). That said, once Christianity had been adopted, it would have made great sense for Romans to FULLY adopt it as that faith actually would stimulate a return to Stoicism. no that is not a paradox, as the full faith demands rigorous moral order, which was typical of early Republican Rome but had declined under the Empire. Properly implemented, Christianity would have mediated the power-mad struggles at the heart of the Roman government, perhaps have prevented the Magister Militum murders you suggested, and then been a tool for integrating the advancing pagan hordes. Missionaries were dispatched but only sporadically. Had that been a wider effort, and had it been unified as opposed to the Arrian effort competing with the Great Church effort, it is entirely possible that the Goths, etc., could have been peacefully Romanized. I note that the internal wars had helped depopulate the core and one good reason to encourage massive immigration is to strengthen the genetic core of the general population. Fresh blood in the best sense of the word. Christianity could have been a strength, not a weakness, but the conservative retention of the long-dead pagan 'faith' blunted this and the result was a length-wise fracture in the fundamental belief system in the Empire. Just one more crack in the Roman unity. Clearly, the problems were manifold. As experienced, Christianity caused problems by splitting the people along yet another vector, but Rome's error was to fight this coming faith rather than fully embracing it. Christians aren't necessarily pacifist and by the way, for a potential recruit to declare for Christianity could as easily get him tortured and killed for certain rather than being enrolled and maybe surviving the wars. Rational decisions can be made by peasants, believe it or not.
On the topic I strongly recommend Schwerpunkt's Late Antiquity and Migration Era series
Empires arise to accomplish some purpose. That purpose accomplished, they lose focus and continue on more by inertia than the original impulse that created them. This leads to a structure that no longer serves a current purpose. People lose interest in preserving the structure for the structure's sake, and the empire loses strength and eventually is replaced. It's the same pattern over and over throughout history and people refuse to accept it and instead look for "10 reasons it ended." The Roman Empire, in life terms, simply got old and died.
I only heard it from author so far that Christianity contributed to the fall in a very particular way as well:
Christian identity gradually started to overwrite the Roman identity in many cases (or at least became the primary identity for the individual). People started to feel more attached to the Church than to the state, the community started to be organized around the local spiritual leadership more than the civil stewards (who were growing more and more distant from actually doing civic duties). It was partly due to the fact that unlike the Greco-Roman pagan religion, the new Christianity provided a strong sense of community and a promise of a better life after this one that many people craved in that turbulent period.
The cultural distinction between the Romans and Barbarians faded. With Christian identity on the rise, and Christianity spreading across the border, the border areas of the empire became a very blurred and grey area where Christian Romans of barbarian descent fought fellow Christian barbarians protecting an empire that was mostly present only in name.
Not only this, but the general "social contract" of the people of the empire was that the legions protects the provinces, the provinces pay taxes, the empire pays the legions, but since borderland provinces were more and more attached culturally to the neighboring Christian "barbarians" than the distant Rome (which as mentioned in the video, was reluctant to generally accept Christianism), the will to pay taxes and give bodies to the legions was ever decreasing.
In many cases, it is more accurate to talk about the "fading" of the Western Empire than the "fall" of it.
What surprises me is that Rome didn't build a formidable wall in the north of the Italian peninsula. I mean yeah it looks obvious in retrospect and "how could they foresee such massive invasions"... But they were invaded a few times, by the Celts and by the Carthaginians, through the north of the peninsula. So a ginormous complex of walls and ditches and fortresses to the north of Medialanum, some distance from the Alps, would have made perfect sense. I'm sure the Romans knew perfectly well that the Alps themselves were not perfect defenses.
The plagues surely have to bear their share of the blame. And regardless of any disputes about Christianity, the old Republican virtues that had sustained the first century of the Empire -- such things always take long to disintegrate -- were absent when Rome most needed them later on -- as such virtues always are under absolute rule. A lesson our time, marching headlong to a total-computer-surveilled bureaucratic and 'activist'-driven absolutism, would do well to consider (but probably won't, at least not enough of us)
Exelent video,keep the good work.
But,naming this video should be The Fall of the West R.Emp,becouse the Empire still existed in the East,named Eastern Roman Empire (the name Byzantine Empire is a modern slang,probably used by wastern historians to justify Latin and Crusader sack and religius difrenses between the two)
I would submit the end of Republican/Senate rule (democracy?) was also a contributing factor that led to rule by Emperors - so perhaps Julius Caesar crowning himself emperor might feature on this list since it started Rome down the path to ruin. It took so long for the Empire to collapse because of how strong it was economically and militarily and as you point out in your video it took many different cataclysmic events to bring it down - what a shame.
With the transformation of the Roman army into an army that was mostly made up of non-romans " Italians" , especially at the leadership level, the army no longer had a national feeling or a sense of belonging to the empire, and the only concern of its generals was power. Therefore, military coups and civil wars between generals for power increased, which greatly weakened the empire
If you have ten explanations for anything, you have no one.
The Roman Empire suffered form the 4 riders of the apocalypse = war, plaque, famine, and death....
Plaque. They obviously never invented the toothbrush.
That to.. LOL..... I meant plague.... spell check.... 1st world problems......
The empire fell in 1453 not 476
He is talking about the Western Empire.
The Eastern Roman Empire was a cheap copy of the OG United Roman Empire. They just somehow managed to survive and failed to achieve anything spectacular. Time and time again they were on verge of collapse and somehow managed to avert the disaster. Over the time also Roman influence waned and it became more of a Greek Empire. So yes Roman Empire collapsed in 476
@@anmolkumarsharma5627
The eastern Roman empire wasn't a copy it was the continuation of the Roman empire and how can the Roman influence wane when it was 100% Roman till 1453
Also what do you mean by Greek empire ?
@@GetRidOfCivilAssetForfeiture
The eastern Roman empire was continuation of Rome
The Roman empire still survived until 1453
first off, maiorianus actually said that, literally, but focused on the West. I've criticized him in another post for failing to notice that the Goths who invaded the West were Arian Christians and also to have failed to notice that Christianity of itself was not the cause, nor contributory but was part of the solution which Rome failed to sufficiently embrace. The division of the people into prior Roman belief and emergent Christian belief was really the problem, just adding one more vector for legions to square off against each other about,
The Arabs and the Turks were formidable, but sporadic enemies of the Eastern Roman Empire. The constant enemy was Bulgaria. The longest peace was 30 years. Usually, every 6-7 years there would be problems on the border with Bulgaria. And that continued from 680 till 1393.
ONE MAJOR REASON- ONE NAME -RICIMER!
Fantastic video, but if you ask me you forgot the core reason: the failure of Rome's cultural habita in the late Republic. This led directly to the dissintegration in political succession which created Caesar, and the hard attempts at enforced conservatism expressed by Augustus. Which failed to bring back thw spirit of Rome, and enabled the ad-hoc structure you gave the final blame for. At least in my analysis.
The main failure of Rome was due to the constant civil wars & succession wars/crisises. These happened basically all the time, & many at the same time & overlapped. Basically virtually all the most destructive wars in the 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries were civil wars. Also in the christian era succession law can basically be summed up as success implies’ god’s favour. This was a disaster for Rome. The fact is during those few small periods when they’re was no succession crisis, professional Roman troops had absolutely no problem defeating rebellious ethnic breakouts & barbarian invasions. But over time this continued internal bickering took it’s toll as it became more toxic with every year.
eastern rome survived with the sacrifice of the west.
the west survived with the sacrifice of the east.
Lead poisoning
Homosexuality
Pussification
General Apathy
Oh god, please not the length of lead piping again. It’s getting like Cluedo. Almost nobody outside the big cities had any piping, let alone lead.
I can't understand people who genuinely believe something as superficial as homosexuality was one of the causes, let alone a leading one for the fall of the Roman Empire.
I have the impression that the participation in the Roman army was almost always in the process of being outsourced further and further from the center. Italians had full rights to Roman citizenship some time after 100BC, and yet even in the first century AD, Italians were only really a major constituent part of the army in the form of the praetorian guard. There is the famous "Dalmatian and Pannonia" as recruiting grounds for the empire relatively early. It seems to me that as the empire grew bigger, there was less and less identifying yourself as a proud Roman, since it was pretty much the whole known world. On a day-to-day basis, there wouldn't have been anyone to compare and contrast yourself with,. In the Republican period there were various other comparable states that were rivals to Rome, but later on, other than the Persians, it would have mostly been amorphous barbarian tribes.
I would think that if Christianity could be responsible for the fall in the empire in any way, it would have reduced the foreignness of invading barbarian tribes who were already Christian. I am not sure if any of the tribes that eventually had great and ultimate success against the Romans were not already Christian. The Huns were ultimately didn't stay after Attilia died. Most of the Goths were already Christian.
I suppose to sum up, ultimately Romans didn't really identify as one people in a primary and strong sense.
Its why I feel like my country; India is also not on a good path compared to SEA nations, we just lack civic sense.. there is an absolute lack of civic sense in our nation, people only care about what they do and not how it might affect their neighbours or family. Ive seen people in my neighbourhood pour used cooking oil down the road because they cant be bothered for the waste collection crew to come every week, its actually pathetic. Germany, Japan, Singapore all these nations poor as all hell after war/ independence but because of the citizen's attitude they have the greatest stories, I guess germany is faltering in that too.
The western empire had the short end of the stick, always. Both in population size, food production and economic development, it was not gonna turn out fine for them.
Heck, even threat wise, the eastern roman empire had to deal with a consolidated empire that didnt have much reason to expand, it was already rich as well and facing its own issues.
The western roman empire had barbarians with nothing to lose with invading rome, and much to lose with staying around germany.
the fall of the fertility rate is a bigger problem than stated
No estoy de acuerdo en atribuirle al cristianismo (religión católica) tanta culpa en la caída del Imperio romano. Además, la opinión académica es que ya había un declive natalicio entre los romanos cuando el cristianismo se volvió la religión oficial del imperio. No hay que olvidar el contexto social y cultural en que se desarrolló el cristianismo temprano.
hi
Further, was it not the case that the Goths invading Italy were already Christians? Granted they were Arians, but that only meant they held a variant of the Faith, not that they were still pagani as the term would have gone in that age (not quite what we mean today). So if they were all that thoroughgoingly violent, why would it be the case that Christianity must necessarily be a debilitant against military might or intention? If we need an example of it near that age, let us consider Belisarius, though he is in the next century beyond the end of the fully-configured Western Empire. I must contend that the problem for Rome was that she refused to make up her mind as to what moral order she would pursue and this was the reason Christianity didn't help, not that it couldn't have. We have only to consider our present circumstance to recognize that having a divided moral order is the problem not what competing belief systems might each proclaim. Though to the degree that the one utterly contradicts the other does exacerbate the problem and drive it to dire consequences all the sooner. A fate we're about to find out about for ourselves.
Mainly diversity in who they made citizens which losing their core Greek principles. As they even admit. You should have emphasized that.
Also the US founding faters even admitted it and said they r the new Rome to bring back the greek way of thinking and found it a shame americans dis not know Greek. Since they admitted the constirjion is oy for a cjeistian people since it does not work for others if they comei. Which is why they had laws about that too. Many typos but will fix later. Lol
We are all Greece and Rome.
I can't help thinking that, if your previous video had put the blame for the Fall squarely on Christianity and 'toxic masculinity,' that that copyright claim would never have been filed!
Not only that, but this video is causing men to think even MORE about the Roman Empire, thus increasing the masculine toxicity in the population, which undoubtedly also causes climate change.
@@pilgrim42And an epidemic of wicked sarcasm!
Christianity delayed the death of Rome. Konstantin was not a fool. Rome was ruined by greed .
With the amount of civil wars throughout Roman history it’s almost tragic that an increasingly Christian empire did not model itself more after Jesus than Romulus. Romans clearly caused the fall of the Roman Empire.
You have to go back to Octavian he stayed in office too long ten to twenty years at most would have been better and a system using the old two counsel the office by election maybe a modified presidential with a chief counsel and vice-counsel The worst would be assassinations and place coupes. Another idea is to abandon North Africa and concentrate on Europe
AVE ME!!!!!!
Christianity didn't take over the western part of the Roman empire during Theodosius or under orher emperors
It was imposed by the barbarian kingdoms that emerged after the fall of Rome
Theodosius refused to employ anyone not a Catholic and imperial patronage was the only way to power.
Do you mean that the invading Arian Goths imposed their version on the Catholic Christianity already widely accepted? If so, then you've got a point but then have to contend with the reality that Arianism withered away under the strict logic of Chalcedonic Christianity, the bedrock of both Orthodoxy and Catholicism both of which thrived in their respective spheres of influence. That difference was a linguistic one, actually, as the Greek originals did not translate well into Latin and the deep influence of Augustine, who did not know any Greek, meant that the western version drifted from the eastern, ultimately ending the Great Schism which fully occurred in the fourteenth century after centuries of partial implementation,.
@@paulkelly2701 some so called barbarians were Catholic such as the Burgundians, and the Franks were allegedly no Christian before Clovis, but they were a smaller elite group and I suspect many were Arians. When the Gothic elite wanted to convert, they turned to eastern Christianity from Constantinople which was Catholic then. Some resisted. See the Passion of St Saba.
@@Joanna-il2ur Good call, but you have the relationship backward: all Great Church Christians were then Orthodox. Catholicism arose under the errors of Augustine and the pressure of the Arians. This is why the filioque was adopted in the West: to end the notion that Christ was a creature, the salient feature of Arianism. As the East never accepted the notion, there was never a need to invent new theology about it. In the West, it ended up causing either Modalism or Ditheism and was thus rejected by the Christian East. That's what caused the eventual schism, along with the insistence by the Roman Patriarch that, as Pope of the senior Patriarchate, that entitled him to rule over all Christians. This was a violation of the Councils to which his Church had already subscribed and amounted to open heresy. It could have been avoided, but nobody in the east wanted to speak Latin and nobody in the west wanted to speak Greek and the difference there helped the confusion to proliferate. And this also contributed to the lack of enthusiasm of either side to come to other's aid. Oops. Here comes the Fall of the Empires. Hope this helps.
@@Joanna-il2urMost of the population in Hispania was already Chalcedonian. The Suebi King Rechilar was the first to convert to Chalcedonian from Arianism in the late 5th century
I think there were many tributary causes, but the main cause was the unsuitable political system, which led to the many civil wars that drained the wealth and manpower of the empire. In turn, this led to currency debasement, dependency upon mercenaries and foederatii, and the incremental diminishment of the emperor's authority. Even if Majorian had succeeded in uniting the Western Roman Empire, I think that its stability would have largely depended upon the force of his personality, meaning that a weaker successor could have seen the empire slip through his fingers. Christianity did erode the warlike values of the Romans, but I see Christianity as more of a correlation than a causation, feeding upon the rotting carcass of the empire and glorifying death as a passage to a better world.
I suggest you consult an orthodox priest about that last point. And I might note that death was in fact already heavily glorified in Roman pagan propaganda: 'How glorious it is to suffer death for the benefit of the nation' is a pagan slogan, not a Christian one. And if the Goths were themselves Christian, how does that square with a notion of total Christian pacifism as some kind of solvent for national ability to rise and defend itself?
@@paulkelly2701 The Romans glorified death in battle in service of the empire, personal honour and of civilisation; the Christians glorified it in service of an autocratic god and in pursuit of eternal life. War for its own sake was and still is condemned by Christianity, though you raise a good point about the paradox of the Goths adopting Christianity. I have no idea as to how this affected their martial spirit and civilisational capacity. However, I do know that Rome was foolish to forsake its traditions and identity in favour of a religion that increasingly sought secessionist powers and/or autonomy for itself - a factor, I think, that may have cynically encouraged some migrating barbarian tribes to adopt Christianity.
@@cerdic6586You clearly speak from outside the Christian tradition. Do you suggest that God is somehow not authorized to rule that which He created? Do you suggest He does not transcend our consensus? You then speak of another god, which seems typical of those not educated in theology. And you err if you think the Romans gods He displaced were not themselves also autocratic. They were and were also pedantic, petty, self-dealing and vengeful. Many think this also applies to the Christian God, They err. He is not an ATM to dispense goodies to those who think to bribe Him. That is how idols work, not the true God. And, as I say, Christianity was not pacifist. Many soldiers effectively fought as Christians, and as we note, against other Christians. Rome failed because she both failed to suppress Christianity if that were possible nor did she fully embrace it as would have been advisable.
@@paulkelly2701 I speak as an atheist seeking to understand the political, sociological and philosophical implications of Christianity. You cannot explain the decline and fall of the Roman Empire via theology (except, perhaps, metaphysically; but then why bother to engage with non-Christians in historical debate?).
I do not consider Christianity to be a pacifistic religion at all. In fact, it has been the most violent of all religions in history, if you consider how it condoned and sometimes spearheaded European colonialism. My point was that the alien values of Christianity sapped the traditional values of Rome that made her great. As did other values, such as cosmopolitanism.
As for paganism being likewise autocratic, I think it was less so. Roman polytheism did not have an omniscient, omnipotent god who had special relationships with individuals. It had none of the puritanical social mores that early Christianity had.
My original point was that Christianity was not a direct cause of Rome's decline, though it did exacerbate existing weaknesses (namely, social and political disunity that were causing civil wars and secessions/transitions to feudalism). You will probably downplay this, but Christian mobs and demagogues did play a large role in destabiling the empire in the 4th and 5th centuries.
@@cerdic6586 Closer examination has disproved the mobs suggestion. The Library was disassembled, not destroyed in one go. It was my point that Christians are not pacifists, so I wonder that you raise it again as a logical club. Christians make excellent troops and did so for the Empire. I hold that the problem was and is for the current empires, an unwillingness to adopt and conform to a single moral order, but to think that multiple orders could somehow coexist. This is nonsense and self=destructive. It was far more effective in destroying the Empire than is generally accepted, And this truth will be played out again over the next few years. Watch and see if it doesn't. and one element that plagues Christianity, as it has plagued every faith and belief system is the constant ability of people to look at the bits of an elephant, come away with a partial picture and then want to kill anyone who seems to see a different elephant, or worst, the whole Thing.
Rome was always going to fall, it was just a matter of when.Barbarian Immigration, bad economies, a civil service that went into business for itself, plagues, weak leaders all are reasons given.
Homosexuality caused the fall of Rome.
That is an interesting theory, but I can't say that I agree with it. There are no real numbers about the prevalence of homosexuality in the Roman Empire, but it was probably very very low. I think below 1%. It cannot have had a big influence, because it stayed constantly low, and did not increase towards the late Empire, actually it went even down, because Christianity certainly did not view it in a favorable light. So I think that theory cannot hold up to scrutiny.
If it had lasted a bit longer Islam would have have been crushed in its crib. The vacuum left by Rome was filled by a malignancy
I do not agree with the Christianity part, and even if it was true the Romans traded their Empire for Eternal Salvation - a pretty easy choice in my opinion.
The pagan religion was much more pro war Christianity at the time made the population less and less willing to fight like the old pagans did. After all if it’s a sin to kill vs going to glory for the war god that’s a totally different motivation. It’s changed the entire outlook of the way the saw the world . It absolutely in my opinion was a reason they got weak. The idea of a warrior Christian wasn’t a thing then at all like the later years after the fall
Exactly, the choice is glaringly obvious and yet they took the dumbest decision and chose delusion over reality…
Now now. We all know that promise is unconfirmed and is just as likely as any other religion's afterlife.
Christianity hasn’t changed much in 2000 years. Evangelicals in the U.S. are on a quest to destroy this country. They’re nuts and they live their own lives in mental torment for a dark, delusional religion.