Maybe it's a good thing that Justinian and Belisarius died in 565 and they didn't have to watch their dream, the reconquest of Italy, which they achieved with such great effort, eventually turn into ruin.... One can only feel sorry for Narses, who as an old man had to watch this tragedy.
@@alexzero3736I second that, if Justinian would have fully supplied Belisarius, Italy would have been conquered and pacified way before the rise of King Totila and the second half of the war
I have read some recent scholarly theories that the Romans invited the Lombards in to Italy as an allied tribe/foederati, and they rebelled once the saw the weakness of Roman forces. This theory makes a lot of sense to me, we know that the Lombards had fought against the Ostrogoths under Roman command such as at the Battle of Taginae in 552 AD. And it also explain how the Lombard's seemingly sprang up out of nowhere in the middle of Italy without any resistance, they were claiming land they were supposed to be ruling on behalf of the Roman Empire.
This seems partially true to me. I think Lombard Foederati rebelling makes perfect sense for southern Italy. In northern Italy I just assume outside invasion like a sudden horde besieging cities under the mountains.
@@عليياسر-ذ5بOnly parts of it, the southern Lombards were indeed Foederati that turned against the Romans and took the city of Benevento, which would become their capital for the next 300 years. Roman rule in the south was restricted to Naples, Amalfi, Gaeta, half of Calabria, Salento, and Sicily
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب Only partsof it. The appenines ares of south italy felt pretty much immediately with two lombards dukies (Spoleto and Benevento) showing up out of nowhere and with no territorial continuity with the northen Lombard until much later.
I am also thinking about the motivation of the Eastern Romans to invest resources into holding and rebuilding Italy and Rome - probably none of them visited Rome before and the city of Rome was for them only a legend, 100+ years old... Italy was not important from the point of commerce, was not a source of slave labor (as it was no conquest, but a "liberation campaign") - so basically high costs and no profit, apart from immaterial prestige.
Yes, I was thinking the same. Nicely written. The cultural estrangement might have also played a role, feeling that they didn't really have any connection any more to Rome.
@@Maiorianus_SebastianWhich is exactly why we need to call them the Byzantines at this point. They are more different than Americans are to the British. "Roman" was political heritage; not cultural continuity.
@@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking Culture always changes in time, and there was always a cultural divide between East and West. You have Caesar vs Pompey, Octavian vs Anthony, basically showing the divide between the west and east. I do not think they should be called Byzantines, as this is an artificial name that denies their romanness and their identity. They were Romans. At this stage and for hundred of years, Rome was not as important, but New Rome was as crucial to the Eastern Romans as the Old Rome was to the ancient Romans.
@@KathrynsWorldWildfireTrackinglmao it makes no sense to call the Eastern Romans Byzantines at this time, when they still administered in Latin, controlled Rome, had essentially every old Roman institution and office, organized and governed itself in the same manner since Diocletian, and controlled about 3/4 of the classical empire. Hell, they still faced many of the same enemies which destroyed the Western Roman Empire at this point. Meaningful change and deviation would only really occur following the ascension of Heraclius, and cataclysmic invasions by the Persians, Avars, Muslims, Slavs, Bulgars, etc. Even then however, Byzantine really only denotes the cultural and linguistic changes, as opposed to any political reality.
@@ionutpaun9828 Lol, how can You say that is an artificial name? If You don't know the history of the city read more. Founded by Greeks from Megara in 7 century BC the Greek name being Byzantion. As for the Eastern Roman Empire to be called the Byzantine Empire ,I totally agree. By the time of the Lombard invasion, the Eastern Roman Empire was Roman mainly in name since the majority of the populace was not of Roman origin and the Latin language was spoken mainly by the leadership. This was a new political entity feeling related to the former Roman Empire but different in many aspects.
Interesting video. The reasons for the weak resistance of the Romans were indeed the severe manpower shortages after the Justinian plague and an economy that had been wrecked by wars, plagues and instability, armies requires a lot of money after all. Justinian’s wars in the west were a textbook example of military overextension, i wonder what would have happened if the ostrogotic kingdom was not invaded, would an unified Italian kingdom develop in a similar way to the french one?
Another interesting thing, genetic analysis of ancient people dna and of the modern Italian population show very little changes between the end of the Roman Empire and modern times. So the germanic invaders were probably in very small numbers compared to the general population and were gradually absorbed into it.
Doubt it, the Ostrogoth monarchy was on shaky ground after theodorics death and you still have the Lombard invasion and then Rise of Islam to deal with plus Frankish and German intervention.
@tylerellis9097 The lombard invasion probably would have not happened if it weren’t for the eastern roman invasion and even then could very well have been stopped by the ostrogoth. Rise of islam wouldn’t be a problem either for similar reasons. With a state that did not exhaust itself in constant wars it’s more than easy to push the relatively minor invasions of italy back.
Your one of the only people left who actually calls the Eastern Romans by their real name. Maybe one day, future historians will rename name America after the 21th Century, because they wore cowboys hats in the 1800s, and they don't want to get confused.
Exoynms are never wrong. Tecnically, unless you call them "Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων", you are still using an exonym in the form of "eastern romans". By your own logic, Hungarians should be butthurt foreigners dont call their country "Magyarország".
@@scottanos9981even though Caesar planned to campaign in Dacia, Persia, Sarmatia and Germania. Augustus through a deep general pool grabbed a big slice but he knew he fucked up after Arminius. The need to pull legions from elsewhere but also limit the amount of legions out of paranoia made the frontier mission extremely hard over time, which is why most usurpers and rebels came from one of the 5 or 6 major pressure points along the Rhine and Danube. Rome needed to do what China did with like 50-60 legions who can essentially pillage northern Europe and Persia every decade or two, but there would have been more civil war and possibly an earlier but less formal split of the empire.
The Lombards ruled much of Italy until charlamgagne came to the rescue and became king of the franks and Lombards and being crowned emperor of the Romans.
@@BronxguyaneseThe Normans were actually on the Lombard side, and against the muslims. It is very likely that they were actually called by the Lombards themselves, as the Lombards, guided by king Liutprando, were previously called by Charl Martel to help him in the fight against the muslims. There are writings in the old Scandinavian languages that show contacts between the Normans and the Lombards, as if interactions were never interrupted (because the Lombards are from Scandinavia). Also, Lombard weaponry was requested in Scandinavia. Then, in Sweden, there are runic inscriptions that tells about people going to fight in "Langbarðaland", against the arabs.
Would a "fortress Italy" have worked, back then? A series of walls and fortresses, blocking every valley and pass coming out of the alps into the Po valley. No need to wall off the valley itself, just the spots that could be used for invading. Of course, invaders can bypass fortifications by sailing along the coast and just disembark at any safe undefended spot. So you still need to heavily fortify the major ports and coastal towns. The roman empire built long defensive walls (limes) near the outer and most vulnerable stretches of land... but I suppose the need to protect the heartland (the peninsula itself) was a question of troops. Large concentration of military power, and ability to quickly dispatch. But a "great wall of China" style series of "plugs" at the root of alpine valleys and in the plain to the east would have made sense. Especially since Rome had been threatened by land invaders many times through its history. The Celts, the Carthaginians, etc.
Rome, Latium and other parts of Italy were never controlled or conquered by the Lombards. In fact, people in the Papal state continued to identify as Romans and constituted a political entity ruled by the Pope, a Roman institution. The Pope even used this as a legitimizing factor, he was supported by the populus romanus. The Roman identity kept on living in the west even after the fall of the western part of the empire. It is a really interesting part of history that is not quite popular.
Ive been recently reading about medieval senators! Mostly Latium but other regions of Italy kept using titles like senator and consul for a long long time
Yes, the Roman nobility continued to act as a senate in Rome! Also, the roman population of Latium legally constituted the roman Res Pubblica, continuing to use that title as well. @@Rynewulf
@@alessandrogrossi6888 it adds an extra level of drama to the Guelphs vs Ghibellines that I like Kaiser "I understand the Senate has made a decision, but its a stupid decision so Im electing to ignore it. And send taxes to Frankfurt or get stomped" Italians "By the People and Senate of the Republic of Rome, you have no authority here German!" Kaiser "I am the King of Rome, and above your grammar and rules, as God wills!" Pope "Um actually Im the Pontifex Maximus and God says..." Kaiser "Stay out of this you know nothing, also you owe me money too" Italians "Disrespect the Pontiff and Curia again and we'll whoop your ass back across the Alps barbarian!" Kaiser "What did you say you conquered coin counting sea merchant sweinhund?" Italians "Fafanculo!"
Despite how outrageous it is to think that the Eastern Roman Empire was fighting a four front war in the 570s, it was in actuality a five front war! Between 570 and 578 the Romans also had to protect Northern Africa from raids from the Mauro-Roman king Garmul, who defeated three Roman armies in quick succession. The Romans were being attacked on every single front possible all at the same time except for in southern Egypt so it’s quite impressive to see that they even held out in most of those regions for a decent amount of year. Also the Romans when it came to the “Mooran Front” were the most successful, actually pacifying Numidia with Garmul’s defeat and death in 578. Hope this comment ads some interesting insight.
Great video! Love to get this level of clarification on a situation. I always thought extra history was a bit weird when they said Narcissus turned coat. Sure weirder stuff had happened in roman history all together so.
I think you forgot two things: 1. how bad shape was the Italy and entire Empire after the plague. 2. The mental illness of Justin II, which also impacted in overall chaos.
So, it was the Ostrogoths all along. They’re the reason why Italy was invaded by the Lombards and divided up until the 1800s (though the south had already been unified by the Normans)
I'd put the blame more on the easterners. The Ostrogoths were just defending a realm given to them by the eastern romans themselves, giving them titles like "Roman Patrician" which gave them legitimacy to govern Italy on behalf of Constantinople.
Normans miraculously knelt to the Pope and converted even as they held most of Naples and Sicily at the time. Doing so legitimized them into a very secure position for hundreds and hundreds of years!
@@scottanos9981You mean they did that after they Beat the Popes ass and took him prisoner after he allied with the Byzantines to get rid of the Normans.
I disagree mostly with the Ostrigothic theory. The Lombards were their enemy and had just destroyed their kins Gepids. The Lombards had also fought at Tagina, creating the Anvil on which the Gothic Cavalry broke, under Narses and saw what Italy was. Furthermore, after the Giustinian pest, Italy population had suffered massively, with the Pro-Roman Mediolanum population wiped out by the Goths after their rebellion and the whole Padania reduced to a wasteland. I guess by inviting the Lombards, Narses was hoping for a buffer state to hold back the Franks in the north, giving away a territory that was by all means useless to Rome. I guess the Emperor in Bizantium had approved, removing a dangerous tribe sitting just north of the eastern empire, which had proven able to defeat the Gepid Foederati. Making the best of a dire situation, luring the Lombards away from Pannonia, giving them a land that had no value to the Bizantine. It backfired spectacularly due to the Avar alliance and the reselience of the Lombards to becoming a roman federate tribe like the Ostrigoths have been under Theodoric
Thank you for another really outstanding overview of late Roman history. Your videos are compulsive viewing . Please keep it up! These histories outline how the Western world today has arisen from an amazing blend of German-Latin culture.
Another great video! Thanks! It really is astounding how many twists amd turns history takes... how close things could have been to completely differemt outcomes.
Excellent video.Indeed, the roman forces in Italy were very scarce, probably few thousands. But the fact that the Empire was not able to levy a significative and combat ready local militia clearly indicates that the local population stayed passive, probably because Italy was treated by Constantinople like any other province and heavily taxed.
The Exarchs forces were almost entirely native so that’s not accurate at all. Infact the last 30 years of its existence was the local Romans in Rome and Ravenna defending the Lombards off themselves as the Greek Exarchs continuously lost control and Ravenna even elected their own imperial pretender, Tiberius Petasius to take the throne from Leo the Iconoclast that was only crushed cause the Pope lended his local troops to help the Last Byzantine Exarch Eutychius crush them. The local Romans and the Exarch lasted for 200 years against the Lombards cause Byzantine rule was still preferable to Lombard rule. We see the same in cities like Naples and Amalfi where even though they turned pro pope and anti Byzantine, they were still fiercely anti Lombard. And of course areas like Sardinia, Calabria and Sicily remained loyal to the Byzantines to the end
@@tylerellis9097 I said a significative local militia.Despite numerous invasions and plagues, the italic population was very numerous: several millions according to the scholars. Even if the Empire was obviously not prosperous enough to recrute a huge army in Italy, if the local Romans had still a patriotic spirit, they could have formed spontaneously local militia capable, , by they sheer numbers, to fight effectifly against the Longobards, whose army was relativly modest in numbers. Local resistence was fierce in Britain againt the Anglo Saxons and in Spain against the Visigoths, until the very end of their rule. In Italy the people stayed mostly passive. For good reasons.
@@antoniotorcoli5740 the Visigoths did not have centuries long resistance from the locals like the Exarchate of Ravenna. All the Visigoths civil wars came from other Visigoths and they were so throughly Latinized by the end there was no difference between them and their subjects who adopted the Visigothic identity. What you just said is the biggest cap. Even the lands they conquered from the Suebi didn’t revolt. And the Roman Britains only surviving in Wales with the shocking rate that the Saxons, angles and other Germanic tribes expanded and assimilated the locals isn’t helping you either. By the time Genoa fell to the Lombards in the 630s the Saxons were already sending priests to Rome that were in communion with the Papacy as the dominant people of the land. Why don’t you look up the number of Lombard sieges of Naples, centuries of siege attempts but the duchy never fell to the Lombards. Rome, Amalfi, Gaeta, Venice same thing. Non Greek Speaking Italians resisting the Lombards successfully for centuries. You’re logic is flawed to begin with given the Italians never resisted ever by your criteria. When the Muslims setup states in southern Italy like at Bari, they sure didn’t resist them, why else would Lombard taken Apulia give up to Muslims and ask for Byzantine aid so easily?
This is the time period I find the more interesting, because Rome in the west still lives, but is changing, fast and slow changes, depending on the topic.
I think the Eastern Romans realized after taking back their ancestral homeland, that it wasn't really worth it anymore. It doesn't help Italy was ruined by the wars.
True also the roman way of conquest just wasn't the same anymore I.e they colonised and built towns cities in the new regions but Eastern Rome at this time didn't really do that nobody was emigrating to Italy 😂 so you were left with a dilapidated province costly yo maintain and defend
They only stopped trying to push the Lombards out once it proved unfeasible with the Rise of Islam. The Byzantines launched 3 main attacks in 576, 590 and 663 to push the Lombards out and all 3 failed, the expedition in 590 being the closest to success but the Franks who were their Allies betrayed them.
"Eastern Romans" < "Ancestral homeland" neither Belisarius or Justinian were born in the Italian peninsula and it's unlikely either were the descendants of the: Italic, Celtic or Etruscan peoples that first inhabited it.
Great video. 👍 Can you make a what if Rome had successfully defended Italy from barbarian invasions and Italy remained unified under Latin rule? P.S. The rest of the Western Empire would still eventually fall though.
I completely understand why you can't continue with this Channel and the countless hours of work you have certainly sunk into it. I'm going to miss your videos man, as a voracious consumer of history your channels dedication to discussing the completely overshadowed Eastern Roman empire has been a godsend in the sea of "Julius Caesar ____" or "Nero writes a ballad, Rome rebels" lol pretty much the same topics done by dozens of channels playing it safe. I love niche things :) and unsung history! Much love man!
The migration of nations wasn't over. There are archeological evidece that after Marcomanni left with Suebians The Langobards shortly lived in Boiohaemum area in today Czechia. They could take place of ruling class among germanic people who stayed there. They traded with Ostrogoths and had contacts with Northern Italy area. When Slavic Tribes pushed west while also migrating, The langobards made decision to push into Newly conquered roman lands. Langobards from Panonia had to leave because of expansion of Nomadic Avars. This is my version mostly built on small number of evidence from Moravia excavation sites and internet sources.
How about the Gepids - another Germanic tribe and neighbors of the Lombards and the story of Rosamunda whose father was the defeated Gepid king whose skull was used as a drinking cup by the Lombard king her husband?
And thank you for your kind donation, I really appreciate it very much :) Happy to see that there are people who are also fascinated by that time period.
You're welcome. Right now one of my TV projects is a time travel series about a super modern cruise ship that gets transported back about 2000 years to encounter the ancient empires of Rome, etc. Your channel is very informative...@@Maiorianus_Sebastian
A cycle of history is that large empires eventually lead to a more easy spreading of plagues, which causes weakness, which then leads to a large empire becoming more easily divided or conquered.
I would like to see more on the foundation of Venice, from them fleeing Lombardian/ Germanic conquest, into the Gulf of Venice, then to the building of a city state, all within a century.
@@baha3alshamari152 It was no match because the long war with Khosrou had exhausted it, and because the Egyptians and Syrians had enough of high taxes and discrimination as heretics by Rome. After reconquering Jerusalem, the Byzantine emperor demanded 17 years of taxes back! The Greek-speaking Byzantine officials must have been seen super arrogant, oppressive, and alien to the Syrians and Egyptians. No wonder the Egyptians welcomed the Arabs with bread and salt. Less tax, and religious freedom.
As Italian I think that the moment in which King Alwin watches for the first time the landscape of Venetian plain from Monte del Re, is simply pure .. GLORY! A new age was born, in which slowly the Roman culture merged with the German culture, giving birth to the medieval Italian civilization, the Langobards' choice gave birth to Italians.
@@tylerellis9097Listen, you should read the Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, that is the History of the Langobards from Benevento, by Erchempertus a monk, it's interesting, the level of violence of the Byzantines was terrible: people deported, looting, stealing, violence against the population of all kind. Instead the Langobards what did they ask? Just the third part of the harvest, cool! Isn't it?
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب: Italian people in Southern Italy was proud to serve the Langobard Dukes! Beneventum, was the most important Langobard dukedom of the kingdom, it survived the fall of the kingdom, the Langobard traditions in the South are still alive! In southern Italy very few loved the Greeks.
@@elisabettamacghille4623 I have, You using that Chronicle without the context is some mad Lombard propaganda. Erchempert was a Lombard Monk at Monte Cassino who wrote a history of the Lombards over time covering the period 774-889. By the time he was writing the last chapter the Byzantines had just reconquered Benevento from the Lombards and he was bitter over it. All his insults against the Greeks being reserved to the last chapter. Yet when you look at the rest of his chronicle before that chapter he doesn’t critique the Byzantines and even praises them for their aid to Prince Guaimar while Salerno was being raided by Muslims and calls Byzantine Emperor Basil I a Pious and good Christian for aiding the Lombard Prince of Benevento, Gaideris. Using that chronicle to describe Byzantine rule in Italy is flatout disingenuous at best and ignorant misguided propaganda at worst. Using a Lombard Chronicle written by someone who didn’t actually live in Byzantine territory and was a Lombard patriot to describe Byzantine crimes….is pretty goofy. Infact what you’re describing sounds like the Continuatio codicis Vaticani(continuation of the Vatican Codex) which specially covers 890-897ad, aka the time the Byzantines ruled over Benevento. Every atrocity known to man is attributed to the Byzantines for their conquest of Benevento and attacks on the Lombard race. Again a Lombard propaganda piece in response to the Byzantine resurgence in southern Italy.
That guy can't make a video without an unrelated 20 minute introduction, a sentence without four parentheses and a video without self aggrandizement and cope about modern socialism and nationalism.
Were there any teachers, engineers, architects and legal scholars left in Italy? Had the Ostrogoths successfully decapitated Roman society? Had war, famine and plague reduced the total population to that of a thousand years before? What would have been the fate of Rome if these new destructive barbarians had taken Rome, faster destruction?
In a parallel universe, Emperor Justinian was fully confident on the loyalty of his general Belisarius (Belisarius was extremely loyal) and would have fully supplied his general and Belisarius would have tore the Ostrogoths to pieces and pacified all of Italy, saving us the long Totila saga and the Lombard chapter. More revenue and less destroyed cities and farm lands would have benefited the funding of defenses and infrastructure for the empire, better preparing it for the ages ahead.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian well in the one we have I got to watch your video, maybe in the parallel universe I never get to discover your channel and.... the Arabs conquer Constantinople in 717, yikes! 💀
The reason why Belisarius didn't just take the whole of Italy right away was a mutiny of a group of soliders in Africa of course Justinian not fully trusting Belisarius played a crucial part but it was the delay it let the Ostrogoths get their act together it let them replace their weak king with vitiges and prepare
Was there a name for the strip of territory from Rome to Ravenna that never fell to the Lombards? I've heard that there was an academic paper written on this subject.
It was called the Duchy of Rome, part of the Exarchate of Ravenna. In the late 8th century A.D., that same strip of land became the Papal States, and for the most part retained those borders until the Italian Independence Wars in the 1860’s
The reliance on AI images means I can't watch this without feeling like my ideas what this era looked like will be getting less accurate, as the AI would only be making it up itself. Perhaps in the future have a little AI icon in the top left so its easier to distinguish.
It is a bit ironic given that the Lombards had been Byzantine allies against the Gepids. I think the Lombards, as Byzantine mercenaries in Italy during the Gothic War, coveted the fertile soil they have found in Italy, Also, they may have been offended when Narses sent them home for mistreating the Italian inhabitants.
Northern flank was always Rome's weak point, going back to Veii. And to be fair it's a tough task. Both the Alps and the gap between the Rhine and Danube would need like 4 or 5 legions to really fortify every choke point. If you can't control that region you're open to raiding and full scale invasion. Rome did a pretty good job all things considered.
Because the alps constantly provide concealment and makes patrols a massive pain in the ass? I thought they would have aided in providing easily defensible chokepoints and deprive an enemy from living off the land
More trade ships, bigger cities while they were clean by some medieval standards think London Paris in medieval times they still had poor condensed areas, the barbarian tribes by this time were less connected to the Eastern ancient world than ever before
If the Ostrogoths are not happy with living under the rule of the Romans, why didn't they just move up north into the remnant of their realm and reorganized there? Since the Romans never cared about expanding into the Rugii's territories, they can reestablished their kingdom just fine with no interference whatsoever.
Its inevitable one way or another . 1.) Romans may still attack Italy if the Ostrogoths still overthrow the Pro-Roman Ostrogoth Queen Amalasuintha which is whole reason in the 1st place of the reconquest of Justinian too Roman Italy . 2.) Franks & Burgundians are Hostile towards Ostrogoths the Rulers of Both Germanic Kings rid out the Daughters of Theodoric the Great that married too them they already Raiding Ostrogoths Borders and the Ostrogoths are divided how too response some wanted too ask the Eastern Romans for help but other is against it they " Rightfully fear " that the Eastern Romans may not leave Italy altogether and Annex some or whole Italy into the Empire fold. 3.) Visigoths is not fully united with Ostrogoths they also later rid Theodoric Grandson which is the King of Visigoths at that time which is the reason why Eastern Roman Empire attack & retaken Southern Spain and re-establish a Roman province of Spania. 4.) They stop the Good tolerance towards the Roman Elite in Italy and started persecuting them when learn by Eastern Romans this, many in the east demanded too Rescue those Romans in the West they still fell camaredie with the Italian Romans well its still over 50 years since the abolition of Co-Emperorship with West & East there still many alive back then
What confirms your assumption regarding it was a coalition of Germanic tribes that invaded Italy in 568 AD not just the Lombards, is the breaking of Lombard kingdom into many small kingdoms soon after Alboin death
If the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths was regarded as part of the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire, sort of like a duchy is to a kingdom, then this situation may had been resolved given the people in Constantinople didn't have such a huge stick up their you know where.
if only the emperor of eastern Rome had the appetite for a united empire but i feel like he had his triumph and glory and then left the campaign taking the glory while the war still continued plus it had been left so long that all the cities and land was damaged and costly to maintain, what was state of the eastern empire at the time of the Lombard invasion probably a little depleted economically for another costly campaign the economic value of italy was long gone
I never understood how they conquered land on both sides of the Exarchate of Ravenna, but not the Exarchate itself. How does that even happen? Such weird, discontinuous borders.
Of course the Byzantines did launch 3 major attempts, 576, 590 and 663 to drive the Lombards out of Italy, the 2nd one almost succeeding if not for the Franks betrayal at the end of the campaign. The Empire was being attacked on all sides during this period and the facts are mainland Italy wasn’t as important to the Empire as Africa, Egypt, Syria or Anatolia in manpower or taxes/grain. So imperial forces were only spared when they were available or the situation in Italy was dire like Emperor Constans IIs direct intervention in the peninsula. Even Hispania, the closest province to being abandoned had generals regularly sent with what forces could be spared and money to hold off the Visigoths until its fall in 623.
They tried on 3 separate occasions and failed, they didn’t have the manpower to keep it up when the empire was being invaded on all sides and then crippled by the rise of Islam.
It was justin the 2nd fault he supported the gepid Germanic trip and not the lombard this forced the lombard to allie with avars then they destroyed the gepid justin 2 toke some forts and said it was huge victory after that the avars pushed the lombard to migrate to Italy
@@aryankhan3619 In the 8th century they were defeated by the Franks and Gallo-Romans in northern Italy, and the Byzantines defeated the weakened Longobards a little later in southern Italy.
@@aryankhan3619 Their wars will continue until Byzantium deprives the Lombards of southern Italy, and the Longobard principality of Beneveto recognizes itself as a vassal of Constantinople. At this time, the “Catepanate of Italy” will be created, which will last from 965 to 1071!
The Romans lacked the large scale regular army of former days - they now depended on various forces held together by the personality of the commander. When such a commander died the "Roman" army fell apart - because it was not really Roman at all.
One of the great myths is that Belisarius's forces were in fact, "Roman"---at least in terms of how the Romans of the day defined it (the possession of "Romanitas") the eastern Roman forces were a farrago of Middle Eastern, Balkan, and Steppe mercenaries including the White Huns----along with a substantial amount of Germanic "foedorati"---not terribly different than what swarmed in with the Longobards, which like "Goth" and "Vandal" was much less of an ethnic concept than an organizational one---confederation of tribes, sundry mercenaries from all parts of the Empire, some of whom might have begun as Eastern Roman soldiers but switched allegiances after playing a role in Justinian's psychopathic ravaging of Italy---or "reclamation of territory" as he might have seen it----It is almost impossible for historians to really paint an accurate picture of just how fragmented, chaotic, desolate and depopulated the Italian peninsula was after Constantinople was done with it...There would be no national "resistance", at that point, the only Italians that strongly identified with the empire was the ruined senatorial and Curial classes----If anything the common people might have seen Longobard rule as an improvement over the dictatorial military occupation of Justinians forces, who played a very vicious role in squeezing the Italians for taxes to pay for the war that ruined them....
That's how they are called in English. After all, Lombardia comes from the Lombards (Langobardi in Latin). It's simply a matter of how the words evolved in Old French and then in English.
The Eastern Roman Empire never governed Rome before the Byzantine conquest of Rome. So, NO, Rome was NOT "reincorporated" into the Eastern Roman Empire.
Emperors already in the Principate forbade civilians to bear arms in the fear they could revolt/boost banditism. It dated back in the Augustus day were the memories of the civil wars were still strong. The no weapons for civilians law were removed in the West only in the mid 5th Century, and i dont think were ever removed in the East.
@@kompo1012 Nonsense. It was Augustus that forbidden civilians to take arms to try avoid a new wave of civil wars. Ironically it was with the christians Aetius and Valentinian III that this law was cancelled, altought wayyyy too little, too late.
Because the Lombards are superior. In fact, southerns, as ungrateful as they are, are on their mass invasion of the north because the Lombards, who saved them from islam, built a better society, which means that the Lombard society, language and culture is now dying.
🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus
Maybe it's a good thing that Justinian and Belisarius died in 565 and they didn't have to watch their dream, the reconquest of Italy, which they achieved with such great effort, eventually turn into ruin.... One can only feel sorry for Narses, who as an old man had to watch this tragedy.
Justinian Ray, his powerful general, lost more than three wars against the Persians
Actually, if there were more trust between Justinian and Belisarius, Italy could be conquered faster than in 13 bloody years...
@@alexzero3736I second that, if Justinian would have fully supplied Belisarius, Italy would have been conquered and pacified way before the rise of King Totila and the second half of the war
heh, it was partly their fault. the lombards were no worst than the eastern romans. they just had an opportunity.
I have read some recent scholarly theories that the Romans invited the Lombards in to Italy as an allied tribe/foederati, and they rebelled once the saw the weakness of Roman forces. This theory makes a lot of sense to me, we know that the Lombards had fought against the Ostrogoths under Roman command such as at the Battle of Taginae in 552 AD. And it also explain how the Lombard's seemingly sprang up out of nowhere in the middle of Italy without any resistance, they were claiming land they were supposed to be ruling on behalf of the Roman Empire.
This seems partially true to me.
I think Lombard Foederati rebelling makes perfect sense for southern Italy. In northern Italy I just assume outside invasion like a sudden horde besieging cities under the mountains.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682But the Romans continued to rule southern Italy
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب part of it
@@عليياسر-ذ5بOnly parts of it, the southern Lombards were indeed Foederati that turned against the Romans and took the city of Benevento, which would become their capital for the next 300 years.
Roman rule in the south was restricted to Naples, Amalfi, Gaeta, half of Calabria, Salento, and Sicily
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب Only partsof it. The appenines ares of south italy felt pretty much immediately with two lombards dukies (Spoleto and Benevento) showing up out of nowhere and with no territorial continuity with the northen Lombard until much later.
I am also thinking about the motivation of the Eastern Romans to invest resources into holding and rebuilding Italy and Rome - probably none of them visited Rome before and the city of Rome was for them only a legend, 100+ years old... Italy was not important from the point of commerce, was not a source of slave labor (as it was no conquest, but a "liberation campaign") - so basically high costs and no profit, apart from immaterial prestige.
Yes, I was thinking the same. Nicely written. The cultural estrangement might have also played a role, feeling that they didn't really have any connection any more to Rome.
@@Maiorianus_SebastianWhich is exactly why we need to call them the Byzantines at this point. They are more different than Americans are to the British. "Roman" was political heritage; not cultural continuity.
@@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking Culture always changes in time, and there was always a cultural divide between East and West. You have Caesar vs Pompey, Octavian vs Anthony, basically showing the divide between the west and east. I do not think they should be called Byzantines, as this is an artificial name that denies their romanness and their identity. They were Romans. At this stage and for hundred of years, Rome was not as important, but New Rome was as crucial to the Eastern Romans as the Old Rome was to the ancient Romans.
@@KathrynsWorldWildfireTrackinglmao it makes no sense to call the Eastern Romans Byzantines at this time, when they still administered in Latin, controlled Rome, had essentially every old Roman institution and office, organized and governed itself in the same manner since Diocletian, and controlled about 3/4 of the classical empire. Hell, they still faced many of the same enemies which destroyed the Western Roman Empire at this point. Meaningful change and deviation would only really occur following the ascension of Heraclius, and cataclysmic invasions by the Persians, Avars, Muslims, Slavs, Bulgars, etc. Even then however, Byzantine really only denotes the cultural and linguistic changes, as opposed to any political reality.
@@ionutpaun9828 Lol, how can You say that is an artificial name? If You don't know the history of the city read more.
Founded by Greeks from Megara in 7 century BC the Greek name being Byzantion.
As for the Eastern Roman Empire to be called the Byzantine Empire ,I totally agree.
By the time of the Lombard invasion, the Eastern Roman Empire was Roman mainly in name since the majority of the populace was not of Roman origin and the Latin language was spoken mainly by the leadership.
This was a new political entity feeling related to the former Roman Empire but different in many aspects.
Interesting video. The reasons for the weak resistance of the Romans were indeed the severe manpower shortages after the Justinian plague and an economy that had been wrecked by wars, plagues and instability, armies requires a lot of money after all. Justinian’s wars in the west were a textbook example of military overextension, i wonder what would have happened if the ostrogotic kingdom was not invaded, would an unified Italian kingdom develop in a similar way to the french one?
Another interesting thing, genetic analysis of ancient people dna and of the modern Italian population show very little changes between the end of the Roman Empire and modern times. So the germanic invaders were probably in very small numbers compared to the general population and were gradually absorbed into it.
Doubt it, the Ostrogoth monarchy was on shaky ground after theodorics death and you still have the Lombard invasion and then Rise of Islam to deal with plus Frankish and German intervention.
@tylerellis9097 The lombard invasion probably would have not happened if it weren’t for the eastern roman invasion and even then could very well have been stopped by the ostrogoth. Rise of islam wouldn’t be a problem either for similar reasons. With a state that did not exhaust itself in constant wars it’s more than easy to push the relatively minor invasions of italy back.
Omg what a dream 0:45 was.... in an alternate universe they did it
About the resistance, I'm from Cremona and I was told my hometown was the last bastion north of the Po river. Though I don't know much else...
Your one of the only people left who actually calls the Eastern Romans by their real name. Maybe one day, future historians will rename name America after the 21th Century, because they wore cowboys hats in the 1800s, and they don't want to get confused.
Exoynms are never wrong. Tecnically, unless you call them "Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων", you are still using an exonym in the form of "eastern romans". By your own logic, Hungarians should be butthurt foreigners dont call their country "Magyarország".
@@TheUrobolos sure
@@OlympusKnightgreat response!
@@OlympusKnight So you cant counter my argument with a proper argument. Nice to know. How do you call the country the natives call "Magyarország"?
If historians play as fast and loose as modern historians, in the future India will be referred to as “The Eastern British Empire”.
How augustus would have wept..
true lol he hated the Germans after he lost his legions there
For there were no more worlds to conquer.....😅
@@scottanos9981even though Caesar planned to campaign in Dacia, Persia, Sarmatia and Germania. Augustus through a deep general pool grabbed a big slice but he knew he fucked up after Arminius. The need to pull legions from elsewhere but also limit the amount of legions out of paranoia made the frontier mission extremely hard over time, which is why most usurpers and rebels came from one of the 5 or 6 major pressure points along the Rhine and Danube. Rome needed to do what China did with like 50-60 legions who can essentially pillage northern Europe and Persia every decade or two, but there would have been more civil war and possibly an earlier but less formal split of the empire.
LUCIUS VERUS GIVE ME BACK MY LEGIONS!!!
@@jakegarvin7634poor Verus, dude was born 150 years after teutoburg
The Lombards ruled much of Italy until charlamgagne came to the rescue and became king of the franks and Lombards and being crowned emperor of the Romans.
They stilled Ruled southern Italy uncontested afterwards after Charlemagne.
s9097 until the Norman's came.
@@BronxguyaneseThe Normans were actually on the Lombard side, and against the muslims. It is very likely that they were actually called by the Lombards themselves, as the Lombards, guided by king Liutprando, were previously called by Charl Martel to help him in the fight against the muslims.
There are writings in the old Scandinavian languages that show contacts between the Normans and the Lombards, as if interactions were never interrupted (because the Lombards are from Scandinavia).
Also, Lombard weaponry was requested in Scandinavia.
Then, in Sweden, there are runic inscriptions that tells about people going to fight in "Langbarðaland", against the arabs.
Would a "fortress Italy" have worked, back then? A series of walls and fortresses, blocking every valley and pass coming out of the alps into the Po valley. No need to wall off the valley itself, just the spots that could be used for invading.
Of course, invaders can bypass fortifications by sailing along the coast and just disembark at any safe undefended spot. So you still need to heavily fortify the major ports and coastal towns.
The roman empire built long defensive walls (limes) near the outer and most vulnerable stretches of land... but I suppose the need to protect the heartland (the peninsula itself) was a question of troops. Large concentration of military power, and ability to quickly dispatch.
But a "great wall of China" style series of "plugs" at the root of alpine valleys and in the plain to the east would have made sense. Especially since Rome had been threatened by land invaders many times through its history. The Celts, the Carthaginians, etc.
The western Emperor should have been restored. This would have better managed that part, I think.
Maurice had that idea for his sons before he got deposed
Rome, Latium and other parts of Italy were never controlled or conquered by the Lombards.
In fact, people in the Papal state continued to identify as Romans and constituted a political entity ruled by the Pope, a Roman institution. The Pope even used this as a legitimizing factor, he was supported by the populus romanus.
The Roman identity kept on living in the west even after the fall of the western part of the empire.
It is a really interesting part of history that is not quite popular.
Roman identity means enslaving and killing Europeans. This is not identity, this is racism
Ive been recently reading about medieval senators! Mostly Latium but other regions of Italy kept using titles like senator and consul for a long long time
Yes, the Roman nobility continued to act as a senate in Rome! Also, the roman population of Latium legally constituted the roman Res Pubblica, continuing to use that title as well. @@Rynewulf
@@alessandrogrossi6888 it adds an extra level of drama to the Guelphs vs Ghibellines that I like
Kaiser "I understand the Senate has made a decision, but its a stupid decision so Im electing to ignore it. And send taxes to Frankfurt or get stomped"
Italians "By the People and Senate of the Republic of Rome, you have no authority here German!"
Kaiser "I am the King of Rome, and above your grammar and rules, as God wills!"
Pope "Um actually Im the Pontifex Maximus and God says..."
Kaiser "Stay out of this you know nothing, also you owe me money too"
Italians "Disrespect the Pontiff and Curia again and we'll whoop your ass back across the Alps barbarian!"
Kaiser "What did you say you conquered coin counting sea merchant sweinhund?"
Italians "Fafanculo!"
@@Rynewulf😂 Fafanculo, is not correct. Vaffanculo is the correct word. 🎉
Criminally underrated channel!!
Despite how outrageous it is to think that the Eastern Roman Empire was fighting a four front war in the 570s, it was in actuality a five front war! Between 570 and 578 the Romans also had to protect Northern Africa from raids from the Mauro-Roman king Garmul, who defeated three Roman armies in quick succession. The Romans were being attacked on every single front possible all at the same time except for in southern Egypt so it’s quite impressive to see that they even held out in most of those regions for a decent amount of year. Also the Romans when it came to the “Mooran Front” were the most successful, actually pacifying Numidia with Garmul’s defeat and death in 578. Hope this comment ads some interesting insight.
@@kompo1012So why did they lose against the Persians?
Great video! Love to get this level of clarification on a situation. I always thought extra history was a bit weird when they said Narcissus turned coat. Sure weirder stuff had happened in roman history all together so.
I found your channel around a year ago and fell now bonded to it. Thank you for such a well prepared and stimulus content.
I think you forgot two things: 1. how bad shape was the Italy and entire Empire after the plague. 2. The mental illness of Justin II, which also impacted in overall chaos.
So, it was the Ostrogoths all along. They’re the reason why Italy was invaded by the Lombards and divided up until the 1800s (though the south had already been unified by the Normans)
I'd put the blame more on the easterners. The Ostrogoths were just defending a realm given to them by the eastern romans themselves, giving them titles like "Roman Patrician" which gave them legitimacy to govern Italy on behalf of Constantinople.
Normans miraculously knelt to the Pope and converted even as they held most of Naples and Sicily at the time. Doing so legitimized them into a very secure position for hundreds and hundreds of years!
@@scottanos9981You mean they did that after they Beat the Popes ass and took him prisoner after he allied with the Byzantines to get rid of the Normans.
@@romainvicta8817Ostrogoths dug their own graves by deposing Amalasuintha and ending the period of Roman tolerance under Theodoric the Great.
By that logic the reason Italy was divided till the "1800's" was the human migration from the African Great Lakes region.
I disagree mostly with the Ostrigothic theory. The Lombards were their enemy and had just destroyed their kins Gepids.
The Lombards had also fought at Tagina, creating the Anvil on which the Gothic Cavalry broke, under Narses and saw what Italy was. Furthermore, after the Giustinian pest, Italy population had suffered massively, with the Pro-Roman Mediolanum population wiped out by the Goths after their rebellion and the whole Padania reduced to a wasteland.
I guess by inviting the Lombards, Narses was hoping for a buffer state to hold back the Franks in the north, giving away a territory that was by all means useless to Rome.
I guess the Emperor in Bizantium had approved, removing a dangerous tribe sitting just north of the eastern empire, which had proven able to defeat the Gepid Foederati. Making the best of a dire situation, luring the Lombards away from Pannonia, giving them a land that had no value to the Bizantine. It backfired spectacularly due to the Avar alliance and the reselience of the Lombards to becoming a roman federate tribe like the Ostrigoths have been under Theodoric
14:29 5 front actually, the moors were invading africa under Garmul. No wonder Justin II had a mental breakdown and went insane.
Thank you for another really outstanding overview of late Roman history. Your videos are compulsive viewing . Please keep it up! These histories outline how the Western world today has arisen from an amazing blend of German-Latin culture.
Another great video! Thanks! It really is astounding how many twists amd turns history takes... how close things could have been to completely differemt outcomes.
Excellent video.Indeed, the roman forces in Italy were very scarce, probably few thousands. But the fact that the Empire was not able to levy a significative and combat ready local militia clearly indicates that the local population stayed passive, probably because Italy was treated by Constantinople like any other province and heavily taxed.
Constantine I: The Middle East is richer than Italy
The Exarchs forces were almost entirely native so that’s not accurate at all. Infact the last 30 years of its existence was the local Romans in Rome and Ravenna defending the Lombards off themselves as the Greek Exarchs continuously lost control and Ravenna even elected their own imperial pretender, Tiberius Petasius to take the throne from Leo the Iconoclast that was only crushed cause the Pope lended his local troops to help the Last Byzantine Exarch Eutychius crush them.
The local Romans and the Exarch lasted for 200 years against the Lombards cause Byzantine rule was still preferable to Lombard rule.
We see the same in cities like Naples and Amalfi where even though they turned pro pope and anti Byzantine, they were still fiercely anti Lombard.
And of course areas like Sardinia, Calabria and Sicily remained loyal to the Byzantines to the end
@@tylerellis9097 I said a significative local militia.Despite numerous invasions and plagues, the italic population was very numerous: several millions according to the scholars. Even if the Empire was obviously not prosperous enough to recrute a huge army in Italy, if the local Romans had still a patriotic spirit, they could have formed spontaneously local militia capable, , by they sheer numbers, to fight effectifly against the Longobards, whose army was relativly modest in numbers. Local resistence was fierce in Britain againt the Anglo Saxons and in Spain against the Visigoths, until the very end of their rule. In Italy the people stayed mostly passive. For good reasons.
@@antoniotorcoli5740 the Visigoths did not have centuries long resistance from the locals like the Exarchate of Ravenna. All the Visigoths civil wars came from other Visigoths and they were so throughly Latinized by the end there was no difference between them and their subjects who adopted the Visigothic identity. What you just said is the biggest cap. Even the lands they conquered from the Suebi didn’t revolt.
And the Roman Britains only surviving in Wales with the shocking rate that the Saxons, angles and other Germanic tribes expanded and assimilated the locals isn’t helping you either. By the time Genoa fell to the Lombards in the 630s the Saxons were already sending priests to Rome that were in communion with the Papacy as the dominant people of the land.
Why don’t you look up the number of Lombard sieges of Naples, centuries of siege attempts but the duchy never fell to the Lombards. Rome, Amalfi, Gaeta, Venice same thing. Non Greek Speaking Italians resisting the Lombards successfully for centuries.
You’re logic is flawed to begin with given the Italians never resisted ever by your criteria. When the Muslims setup states in southern Italy like at Bari, they sure didn’t resist them, why else would Lombard taken Apulia give up to Muslims and ask for Byzantine aid so easily?
This is the time period I find the more interesting, because Rome in the west still lives, but is changing, fast and slow changes, depending on the topic.
dont mind me, just trying to get youtube to recommend this channel to more people by commenting
I think the Eastern Romans realized after taking back their ancestral homeland, that it wasn't really worth it anymore. It doesn't help Italy was ruined by the wars.
True also the roman way of conquest just wasn't the same anymore I.e they colonised and built towns cities in the new regions but Eastern Rome at this time didn't really do that nobody was emigrating to Italy 😂 so you were left with a dilapidated province costly yo maintain and defend
They only stopped trying to push the Lombards out once it proved unfeasible with the Rise of Islam.
The Byzantines launched 3 main attacks in 576, 590 and 663 to push the Lombards out and all 3 failed, the expedition in 590 being the closest to success but the Franks who were their Allies betrayed them.
"Eastern Romans" < "Ancestral homeland" neither Belisarius or Justinian were born in the Italian peninsula and it's unlikely either were the descendants of the: Italic, Celtic or Etruscan peoples that first inhabited it.
Great video. 👍 Can you make a what if Rome had successfully defended Italy from barbarian invasions and Italy remained unified under Latin rule?
P.S. The rest of the Western Empire would still eventually fall though.
I completely understand why you can't continue with this Channel and the countless hours of work you have certainly sunk into it. I'm going to miss your videos man, as a voracious consumer of history your channels dedication to discussing the completely overshadowed Eastern Roman empire has been a godsend in the sea of "Julius Caesar ____" or "Nero writes a ballad, Rome rebels" lol pretty much the same topics done by dozens of channels playing it safe. I love niche things :) and unsung history! Much love man!
The migration of nations wasn't over. There are archeological evidece that after Marcomanni left with Suebians The Langobards shortly lived in Boiohaemum area in today Czechia. They could take place of ruling class among germanic people who stayed there. They traded with Ostrogoths and had contacts with Northern Italy area. When Slavic Tribes pushed west while also migrating, The langobards made decision to push into Newly conquered roman lands. Langobards from Panonia had to leave because of expansion of Nomadic Avars. This is my version mostly built on small number of evidence from Moravia excavation sites and internet sources.
How about the Gepids - another Germanic tribe and neighbors of the Lombards and the story of Rosamunda whose father was the defeated Gepid king whose skull was used as a drinking cup by the Lombard king her husband?
The name Lombard comes from Latin Langobardus from proto-Germanic langaz (long) + bardaz (beard).
The Lombards = The Longbeards
Thanks!
I live in Lombard, Illinois, USA. Lol 😊
3:50 that battle of volturnus should have gave the Lombards pause... if it did, what changed?
Incredible introduction....thank you for sharing
Putting an emoji in the comments also benefits this channel🙂
Thanks a lot Kimberly :) Indeed it does, every comment helps with the algorithm.
Finally a video about my ancestors
Thank you . . Fascinating. . 👍
Great video
Please do a video on Ermaneric & the gothic kingdom of Oium.
Thanks for this and all of your fascinating, informative and fun videos exploring the late Roman Empire.
And thank you for your kind donation, I really appreciate it very much :) Happy to see that there are people who are also fascinated by that time period.
You're welcome. Right now one of my TV projects is a time travel series about a super modern cruise ship that gets transported back about 2000 years to encounter the ancient empires of Rome, etc. Your channel is very informative...@@Maiorianus_Sebastian
Excelent thank you
A cycle of history is that large empires eventually lead to a more easy spreading of plagues, which causes weakness, which then leads to a large empire becoming more easily divided or conquered.
Yes,after the Ostrogoth remnants left Italy after the Gothic Wars,the Byzantines had removed the only capable force of stopping the Lombards.
I would like to see more on the foundation of Venice, from them fleeing Lombardian/ Germanic conquest, into the Gulf of Venice, then to the building of a city state, all within a century.
Evil merchants who worshiped money. They used to sell Europeans to the Romans and Arabs for money.
If Khosrov did not initiate the war and the plague did not happen, we could have seen the restored roman empire.
The eastern Roman empire was no match for the early Islamic conquests
Restoring Rome was impossible anyway
@@baha3alshamari152 It was no match because the long war with Khosrou had exhausted it, and because the Egyptians and Syrians had enough of high taxes and discrimination as heretics by Rome. After reconquering Jerusalem, the Byzantine emperor demanded 17 years of taxes back! The Greek-speaking Byzantine officials must have been seen super arrogant, oppressive, and alien to the Syrians and Egyptians. No wonder the Egyptians welcomed the Arabs with bread and salt. Less tax, and religious freedom.
Nah the campaign was idiotic to begin with as Persia hadn't been dealt any decisive blow. Its a disaster waiting to happen
As Italian I think that the moment in which King Alwin watches for the first time the landscape of Venetian plain from Monte del Re, is simply pure .. GLORY! A new age was born, in which slowly the Roman culture merged with the German culture, giving birth to the medieval Italian civilization, the Langobards' choice gave birth to Italians.
Romans in southern Italy: Leave my country, you barbarians
Unless you’re from Rome, Ravenna, Naples, Amalfi, Gaeta, Venice, Salento, Sardinia, Calabria or Sicily lol
@@tylerellis9097Listen, you should read the Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, that is the History of the Langobards from Benevento, by Erchempertus a monk, it's interesting, the level of violence of the Byzantines was terrible: people deported, looting, stealing, violence against the population of all kind. Instead the Langobards what did they ask? Just the third part of the harvest, cool! Isn't it?
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب: Italian people in Southern Italy was proud to serve the Langobard Dukes! Beneventum, was the most important Langobard dukedom of the kingdom, it survived the fall of the kingdom, the Langobard traditions in the South are still alive! In southern Italy very few loved the Greeks.
@@elisabettamacghille4623 I have, You using that Chronicle without the context is some mad Lombard propaganda.
Erchempert was a Lombard Monk at Monte Cassino who wrote a history of the Lombards over time covering the period 774-889. By the time he was writing the last chapter the Byzantines had just reconquered Benevento from the Lombards and he was bitter over it. All his insults against the Greeks being reserved to the last chapter.
Yet when you look at the rest of his chronicle before that chapter he doesn’t critique the Byzantines and even praises them for their aid to Prince Guaimar while Salerno was being raided by Muslims and calls Byzantine Emperor Basil I a Pious and good Christian for aiding the Lombard Prince of Benevento, Gaideris.
Using that chronicle to describe Byzantine rule in Italy is flatout disingenuous at best and ignorant misguided propaganda at worst.
Using a Lombard Chronicle written by someone who didn’t actually live in Byzantine territory and was a Lombard patriot to describe Byzantine crimes….is pretty goofy.
Infact what you’re describing sounds like the Continuatio codicis Vaticani(continuation of the Vatican Codex) which specially covers 890-897ad, aka the time the Byzantines ruled over Benevento. Every atrocity known to man is attributed to the Byzantines for their conquest of Benevento and attacks on the Lombard race.
Again a Lombard propaganda piece in response to the Byzantine resurgence in southern Italy.
Schwerpunkt has an entire in-depth series on the topic, worth checking out
That guy can't make a video without an unrelated 20 minute introduction, a sentence without four parentheses and a video without self aggrandizement and cope about modern socialism and nationalism.
Were there any teachers, engineers, architects and legal scholars left in Italy? Had the Ostrogoths successfully decapitated Roman society? Had war, famine and plague reduced the total population to that of a thousand years before? What would have been the fate of Rome if these new destructive barbarians had taken Rome, faster destruction?
Excellent channel!
Thanks To This Excellent Vídeo.
The Justinian plague as well. Tanked the economy.
Where do you take the images from? They are astonishing!
Some Ostrogoths may have seen this as payback.
In a parallel universe, Emperor Justinian was fully confident on the loyalty of his general Belisarius (Belisarius was extremely loyal) and would have fully supplied his general and Belisarius would have tore the Ostrogoths to pieces and pacified all of Italy, saving us the long Totila saga and the Lombard chapter. More revenue and less destroyed cities and farm lands would have benefited the funding of defenses and infrastructure for the empire, better preparing it for the ages ahead.
I love that parallel universe. It would have certainly been a better one, than the one we got.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian well in the one we have I got to watch your video, maybe in the parallel universe I never get to discover your channel and.... the Arabs conquer Constantinople in 717, yikes! 💀
The reason why Belisarius didn't just take the whole of Italy right away was a mutiny of a group of soliders in Africa of course Justinian not fully trusting Belisarius played a crucial part but it was the delay it let the Ostrogoths get their act together it let them replace their weak king with vitiges and prepare
Was there a name for the strip of territory from Rome to Ravenna that never fell to the Lombards? I've heard that there was an academic paper written on this subject.
It was called the Duchy of Rome, part of the Exarchate of Ravenna. In the late 8th century A.D., that same strip of land became the Papal States, and for the most part retained those borders until the Italian Independence Wars in the 1860’s
Thanks. This is really interesting - one wonders if it even felt "Roman" there anymore. @@morsecode980
The reliance on AI images means I can't watch this without feeling like my ideas what this era looked like will be getting less accurate, as the AI would only be making it up itself.
Perhaps in the future have a little AI icon in the top left so its easier to distinguish.
Can you please do a video on Marcellinus of dalmatia? I want to know more about him.
It is a bit ironic given that the Lombards had been Byzantine allies against the Gepids. I think the Lombards, as Byzantine mercenaries in Italy during the Gothic War, coveted the fertile soil they have found in Italy, Also, they may have been offended when Narses sent them home for mistreating the Italian inhabitants.
Northern flank was always Rome's weak point, going back to Veii. And to be fair it's a tough task. Both the Alps and the gap between the Rhine and Danube would need like 4 or 5 legions to really fortify every choke point. If you can't control that region you're open to raiding and full scale invasion. Rome did a pretty good job all things considered.
Because the alps constantly provide concealment and makes patrols a massive pain in the ass? I thought they would have aided in providing easily defensible chokepoints and deprive an enemy from living off the land
I think everyone was invading Italy at this time
You mentioned two cities around the 5 minute mark that were not on the map that was showing. Can you fix that going forward?
I'm curious, why plague happened to the roman, but not barbarians? Or the barbarians always produces their population until their have much enough?
Less urbanised, it's why the Arabs were able to conquer Persia and most of the Eastern Roman Empire
More trade ships, bigger cities while they were clean by some medieval standards think London Paris in medieval times they still had poor condensed areas, the barbarian tribes by this time were less connected to the Eastern ancient world than ever before
Also while kingdoms had been formed the core people were still semi nomadic
@@CaptainGrimes1The Arabs were affected by the plague, you smart one 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب You think a nomadic population is going to be affected at the same rate as an urbanised population?? Are you really that thick?
Funny as always.
What if:
Brutus defeated Mark Anthony & Octavian?
Mark Anthony defeated Octavian?
Spartacus won the Third Servile War?
It was the byzantines themselves who rallied Lombard mercenaries to destroy the Goths at Mons Lactarius.
If the Ostrogoths are not happy with living under the rule of the Romans, why didn't they just move up north into the remnant of their realm and reorganized there? Since the Romans never cared about expanding into the Rugii's territories, they can reestablished their kingdom just fine with no interference whatsoever.
Because this much better and ambitious plan worked?
Do you think, if not attacked, the ostrogoths would have joined the eastern Roman's and incorporated back into the empire? Or, was war inevitable?
Its inevitable one way or another .
1.) Romans may still attack Italy if the Ostrogoths still overthrow the Pro-Roman Ostrogoth Queen Amalasuintha which is whole reason in the 1st place of the reconquest of Justinian too Roman Italy .
2.) Franks & Burgundians are Hostile towards Ostrogoths the Rulers of Both Germanic Kings rid out the Daughters of Theodoric the Great that married too them they already Raiding Ostrogoths Borders and the Ostrogoths are divided how too response some wanted too ask the Eastern Romans for help but other is against it they " Rightfully fear " that the Eastern Romans may not leave Italy altogether and Annex some or whole Italy into the Empire fold.
3.) Visigoths is not fully united with Ostrogoths they also later rid Theodoric Grandson which is the King of Visigoths at that time which is the reason why Eastern Roman Empire attack & retaken Southern Spain and re-establish a Roman province of Spania.
4.) They stop the Good tolerance towards the Roman Elite in Italy and started persecuting them when learn by Eastern Romans this, many in the east demanded too Rescue those Romans in the West they still fell camaredie with the Italian Romans well its still over 50 years since the abolition of Co-Emperorship with West & East there still many alive back then
What confirms your assumption regarding it was a coalition of Germanic tribes that invaded Italy in 568 AD not just the Lombards, is the breaking of Lombard kingdom into many small kingdoms soon after Alboin death
Yea they had troops of avars and even somethousands saxons. Remnants of the Ostrogoths and the Rugiis also joined the tribe.
If the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths was regarded as part of the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire, sort of like a duchy is to a kingdom, then this situation may had been resolved given the people in Constantinople didn't have such a huge stick up their you know where.
Eastern Roman Empire = Roman Empire
if only the emperor of eastern Rome had the appetite for a united empire but i feel like he had his triumph and glory and then left the campaign taking the glory while the war still continued plus it had been left so long that all the cities and land was damaged and costly to maintain, what was state of the eastern empire at the time of the Lombard invasion probably a little depleted economically for another costly campaign the economic value of italy was long gone
The Lombards allied with the Avars.
The Avars were the cavalry.
There was also the eruption of Mt. Ilopango in El Salvador in 565
NEED more migrations era content
At this point in history, the eastern romans basically left the former home of the empire in a disastrous state.
I never understood how they conquered land on both sides of the Exarchate of Ravenna, but not the Exarchate itself. How does that even happen? Such weird, discontinuous borders.
Of course the Byzantines did launch 3 major attempts, 576, 590 and 663 to drive the Lombards out of Italy, the 2nd one almost succeeding if not for the Franks betrayal at the end of the campaign.
The Empire was being attacked on all sides during this period and the facts are mainland Italy wasn’t as important to the Empire as Africa, Egypt, Syria or Anatolia in manpower or taxes/grain. So imperial forces were only spared when they were available or the situation in Italy was dire like Emperor Constans
IIs direct intervention in the peninsula.
Even Hispania, the closest province to being abandoned had generals regularly sent with what forces could be spared and money to hold off the Visigoths until its fall in 623.
When all is said and done, the Germans had large families and the Romans (both East and West) small to none.
Funny how a clearly german guy doesnt have a bit of sympathy for his german ancestors
Big question is: why Byzantine empire didn't reconquer their lost territory to Lombards?
Romans: Brother, I control southern Italy
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب no I meant the rest of Italy🤕
Islam
They tried on 3 separate occasions and failed, they didn’t have the manpower to keep it up when the empire was being invaded on all sides and then crippled by the rise of Islam.
@@عليياسر-ذ5بbyzantines control coastal areas of italy
It was justin the 2nd fault he supported the gepid Germanic trip and not the lombard this forced the lombard to allie with avars then they destroyed the gepid justin 2 toke some forts and said it was huge victory after that the avars pushed the lombard to migrate to Italy
Go Long Beards
Byzantium nevertheless defeated the Lombards, since it was able to recapture part of Southern Italy from them in the 10th century!
Lombards were defetead in 8 century
@@aryankhan3619 In the 8th century they were defeated by the Franks and Gallo-Romans in northern Italy, and the Byzantines defeated the weakened Longobards a little later in southern Italy.
@@РимскийОрел lombard byzantine war was ended in 750 ad those will be skirmish or raids
@@aryankhan3619 Their wars will continue until Byzantium deprives the Lombards of southern Italy, and the Longobard principality of Beneveto recognizes itself as a vassal of Constantinople. At this time, the “Catepanate of Italy” will be created, which will last from 965 to 1071!
The Romans lacked the large scale regular army of former days - they now depended on various forces held together by the personality of the commander. When such a commander died the "Roman" army fell apart - because it was not really Roman at all.
You know that the Romans relied on the army commander in the past. What has changed, for God’s sake?
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب Lack of a regular, professional army, instead the had become reliant on a mixture of often irregular forces.
One of the great myths is that Belisarius's forces were in fact, "Roman"---at least in terms of how the Romans of the day defined it (the possession of "Romanitas") the eastern Roman forces were a farrago of Middle Eastern, Balkan, and Steppe mercenaries including the White Huns----along with a substantial amount of Germanic "foedorati"---not terribly different than what swarmed in with the Longobards, which like "Goth" and "Vandal" was much less of an ethnic concept than an organizational one---confederation of tribes, sundry mercenaries from all parts of the Empire, some of whom might have begun as Eastern Roman soldiers but switched allegiances after playing a role in Justinian's psychopathic ravaging of Italy---or "reclamation of territory" as he might have seen it----It is almost impossible for historians to really paint an accurate picture of just how fragmented, chaotic, desolate and depopulated the Italian peninsula was after Constantinople was done with it...There would be no national "resistance", at that point, the only Italians that strongly identified with the empire was the ruined senatorial and Curial classes----If anything the common people might have seen Longobard rule as an improvement over the dictatorial military occupation of Justinians forces, who played a very vicious role in squeezing the Italians for taxes to pay for the war that ruined them....
I don't know why you call them Lombards,the Italian name is "longobardi"This comes from the Germanic "Lang Bart" Or "long beard".
If it fits, i sits?
Plague
save scumming i imagine
But the people identifying as ostrogoths were extremely few in numbers.
please guys, l am a Lombard, a contemporary one. These were the Longobards or Winilli, according to their original name. Do not name them Lombards.
That's how they are called in English. After all, Lombardia comes from the Lombards (Langobardi in Latin). It's simply a matter of how the words evolved in Old French and then in English.
In a way this is just a continuation of the Gothic Wars?
The Eastern Roman Empire never governed Rome before the Byzantine conquest of Rome. So, NO, Rome was NOT "reincorporated" into the Eastern Roman Empire.
Like the barbarian tribes, Rome should have trained every able bodied man to be able to fight and provide the weapons and armor.
Emperors already in the Principate forbade civilians to bear arms in the fear they could revolt/boost banditism. It dated back in the Augustus day were the memories of the civil wars were still strong. The no weapons for civilians law were removed in the West only in the mid 5th Century, and i dont think were ever removed in the East.
@@kompo1012 Nonsense. It was Augustus that forbidden civilians to take arms to try avoid a new wave of civil wars. Ironically it was with the christians Aetius and Valentinian III that this law was cancelled, altought wayyyy too little, too late.
nice
Because the Lombards are superior. In fact, southerns, as ungrateful as they are, are on their mass invasion of the north because the Lombards, who saved them from islam, built a better society, which means that the Lombard society, language and culture is now dying.
The Byzantines allowed them to invade. They needed settlers.
What if Crassus conquered Persia and thee civil war went 3 ways
So Rome was overtaken by Lombardis?? 😂
Avars were huns
Ostrogoths rugii scandinavians