It really says something about Agrippa that almost every commentary on Augustus usually mentions him, and not just for his military victories, but they all underscore how good of a friend he was to Augustus and not just a subordinate.
Octavian was not known as such through his life, that is just the name that historians use to distinguish him from his adoptive father, Gaius Julius Caesar, from whom he had taken his name. Octavian is the past tense version of Octavius
This was fun to watch. Thank you! Editing can be improved a bit. Like add some text when talking about an important date or name (especially with Latin words). List things related to what you discuss.
@2:30 Actually, polls have been taken on this and Ceasar is the 2nd most well known Roman in history. The Roman who is known by the greatest number of people in the world is Pontius Pilate.
It baffles me how Roman records on the kingdom were all lost during its sack in 390BCE. Didn’t the Romans only start recording history in around 200BCE??
Great question! Yes and no. What we would think of as history probably did start around 200 BCE, meaning that record keeping for the expressed purpose of recording history began then. Prior to that though the Roman government still created documents which would have been valuable to later historians. These would have included population statistics, written records of government business, letters to and from various members of the Senate and/or kings and Consuls, and so on. This is the type of stuff that historians would have used to put together what we would recognize as history. However, the Gauls destroyed all of that (we believe it was due to a fire) and because of that all of our understanding and the understanding of contemporary Romans (Livy, Plutarch, etc.) for the period is all based on word of mouth and archeology. Now that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything! But word of mouth and archeology are normally a poor substitute for government records, letters, etc. Another thing we are missing from the Sack are the Annals from the period. The Annals are an odd bit of Roman history but without getting too in depth, we are told by several sources that Rome had someone responsible for writing what were known as Annals. These Annals were meant to be records of basically anything important that happened in Rome. So names of magistrates, notable occurrences, buildings that were built, things of that nature. We are also told that this practice was actually in place prior to the Sack of Rome by the Gauls. Now we don’t know for sure if that is true but if it was then the Annals were almost certainly destroyed and lost during the Sack. That record probably contained a list of basically every event Rome had found itself in since the establishment of the Annals. Again, we don’t know that they existed but we are told they did. Hopefully that clears it up some! Thanks for watching and thanks for the great question!
Do you mean from the founding of the city by Romulus? Or do you mean from the habitation of the city from 1000 BCE? The honest issue with the beginning of Rome is that we don’t have much in solid history no matter which start date you pick. The story surrounding Romulus is probably mostly false even if the man actually existed and there isn’t much in terms of a historical record for the earliest habitation of Rome. It’s just a time shrouded in myth and a time that’s hard to piece together. Thanks for watching!
@@idiottalkshistory I mean Etruscan society, a little bit of Magna Grecia, the Latins, a little bit how how the italian peninsula was populated, etc etc, who the Romans were before being Roman, and yes eventually Romulus and Remo, the 7 kings, the last etruscan king (lucrecias suicide etc etc). I know this is not how it happened and it is most likely a fable, its just about the chronology. What came first? Kingdom, Republic, Imperium? This kind of stuff. Its just confusing for newcomers.
I can definitely look into it! I’m not an expert or nearly as well versed in Ottoman history as I am Roman history but I will definitely look into it! Thanks for watching!
The Turks weren’t a continuation, the Roman Empire cannot be taken by right of conquest as proven in the west with the Ostrogoths, it is to grand for that. The empire can only be given by the Roman’s themselves to others, Spain was the Succesor to Rome, since the last member of the Polaiologos Dunasty gave the title of emperor to the Spanish king
It really says something about Agrippa that almost every commentary on Augustus usually mentions him, and not just for his military victories, but they all underscore how good of a friend he was to Augustus and not just a subordinate.
I know right, everyone needs an Agrippa! Thanks for watching!
Octavian was not known as such through his life, that is just the name that historians use to distinguish him from his adoptive father, Gaius Julius Caesar, from whom he had taken his name. Octavian is the past tense version of Octavius
Good point, you’re definitely correct I just have gotten so used to reading and saying Octavian! Thanks for the correction! And thanks for watching!
this is brilliant
I really enjoy your videos but the volume is pretty low compared to the average youtube video/ the adds.
This was fun to watch. Thank you!
Editing can be improved a bit. Like add some text when talking about an important date or name (especially with Latin words). List things related to what you discuss.
@2:30
Actually, polls have been taken on this and Ceasar is the 2nd most well known Roman in history. The Roman who is known by the greatest number of people in the world is Pontius Pilate.
Excellent video, btw!
Good point, I always forget about him! Thanks for watching!
Well made video!
Thanks for the awesome video and great content!!
"The Gallic Sack" - I've seen that movie!
It baffles me how Roman records on the kingdom were all lost during its sack in 390BCE. Didn’t the Romans only start recording history in around 200BCE??
Great question! Yes and no. What we would think of as history probably did start around 200 BCE, meaning that record keeping for the expressed purpose of recording history began then.
Prior to that though the Roman government still created documents which would have been valuable to later historians. These would have included population statistics, written records of government business, letters to and from various members of the Senate and/or kings and Consuls, and so on. This is the type of stuff that historians would have used to put together what we would recognize as history.
However, the Gauls destroyed all of that (we believe it was due to a fire) and because of that all of our understanding and the understanding of contemporary Romans (Livy, Plutarch, etc.) for the period is all based on word of mouth and archeology. Now that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything! But word of mouth and archeology are normally a poor substitute for government records, letters, etc.
Another thing we are missing from the Sack are the Annals from the period. The Annals are an odd bit of Roman history but without getting too in depth, we are told by several sources that Rome had someone responsible for writing what were known as Annals. These Annals were meant to be records of basically anything important that happened in Rome. So names of magistrates, notable occurrences, buildings that were built, things of that nature. We are also told that this practice was actually in place prior to the Sack of Rome by the Gauls. Now we don’t know for sure if that is true but if it was then the Annals were almost certainly destroyed and lost during the Sack. That record probably contained a list of basically every event Rome had found itself in since the establishment of the Annals. Again, we don’t know that they existed but we are told they did.
Hopefully that clears it up some! Thanks for watching and thanks for the great question!
I wonder why no one starts from the beggining when it comes to Rome.
Do you mean from the founding of the city by Romulus? Or do you mean from the habitation of the city from 1000 BCE? The honest issue with the beginning of Rome is that we don’t have much in solid history no matter which start date you pick. The story surrounding Romulus is probably mostly false even if the man actually existed and there isn’t much in terms of a historical record for the earliest habitation of Rome. It’s just a time shrouded in myth and a time that’s hard to piece together. Thanks for watching!
@@idiottalkshistory I mean Etruscan society, a little bit of Magna Grecia, the Latins, a little bit how how the italian peninsula was populated, etc etc, who the Romans were before being Roman, and yes eventually Romulus and Remo, the 7 kings, the last etruscan king (lucrecias suicide etc etc). I know this is not how it happened and it is most likely a fable, its just about the chronology. What came first? Kingdom, Republic, Imperium? This kind of stuff.
Its just confusing for newcomers.
If you can do some sort of a Ottoman Empire iceberg video, that would be awesome like this video too, thanks!
I can definitely look into it! I’m not an expert or nearly as well versed in Ottoman history as I am Roman history but I will definitely look into it! Thanks for watching!
The Turks weren’t a continuation, the Roman Empire cannot be taken by right of conquest as proven in the west with the Ostrogoths, it is to grand for that. The empire can only be given by the Roman’s themselves to others, Spain was the Succesor to Rome, since the last member of the Polaiologos Dunasty gave the title of emperor to the Spanish king
A fair conclusion!