I love your videos and I’ve been binging them over the last week. For us color-blind people, the Blue/Purple colors representing East/West can look identical. May I suggest using colours further apart when differentiating like this (eg blue+red/yellow/orange/green)). If that’s not possible, at least making one lighter and the other darker makes a huge difference.
Seeing these charts at the end makes me realise how short our recorded history is. Assuming a generation is 25 years, it only takes roughly 80 generations to go back to the times of Augustus. We as a species have advanced so much in so little time it's incredible.
For some comparison, there is a baby of the Georgian Bagrationi family, Bagrat de Bagration, who was born in 2021. He is supposedly the 76th-great-grandson of Marc Antony, contemporary to Augustus. Although there are some tenuous links in this line of descent, it's probably the most likely 'descent from antiquity' claim in Europe.
6:49 Constantine did not called his new capital city “Constantinople” that name would come much later after him instead he called it “Nova Roma” or New Rome.
Some comment about the title of "The Great". The title can mean a title of honor, but it can also be used to differentiate between people with the same name, with the older one being the Great/Elder and the younger one being the Lesser/Younger. All of the Roman emperors whose title is the Great in our sources were the first of multiple emperors with the same name, and the title isn't given to them by the sources until after another emperor with the same name comes to power, which makes the latter interpretation of the title more likely. The only exception is Constantine, whose title in Greek is different (and should really be translated as The Greatest).
Constantine didn’t renamed Byzantion to “Constantinople”. He built the whole city from the ground of the old one (which was basically a glorified small town at that point) where he intended it to be called something along the lines of “Nova Roma” or “Roma Secunda”. The name Constantinople first arose as popular unnofical folk name to refer to the new city (as in “Constantine’s City”) until it eventually became the official name of the city
Regarding Irene as the first Roman Empress Regnant, there's actually a claim from the mid-270s that possibly precede her. After the Emperor Aurelian was assassinated, the elites of the empire were gunshy about grabbing power, since he was the popular Restorer of the World, so both the Army and the Senate kept inviting each other to select the next emperor and thus look like the guy who killed him for base ambition, and thus be the target for revenge. Some histories have this interregnum at six months, though popular consensus is closer to a month or six weeks. However long this interregnum however, there are coins minted in the name of Ulpia Servina, Augusta and widow of Aurelian, leading some to believe she actually presided over the empire in some form until Emperor Tacitus was finally selected by the Senate.
A note about Constantine's nickname. Calling him "The Great" is actually a habit of modern historians. Up to the XIXth century no one called him that. My source : italian historian Alessandro Barbero, who explains this in his book "Constantine the Winner" ("Costantino il Vincitore" in italian, "victor" beign one of the epithets that Constantine chose for himself).
@@gazey In romance countries (and others too) roman numerals are used to denote centuries, and they also have many other uses that english language doesn't employ.
@@gazey oops, sorry! It's a latinism! I am a native romance language speaker, and when I was writing I forgot that in english centuries are spelled with arabic numerals (in italian, spanish, french etc. they are spelled with roman numerals).
Oh yay a new video!! My daughter is going to be so happy when she wakes up tomorrow!! She's 10 and she loves your videos. She would watch all of them in a weekend if I let her haha ❤
Corpus Juris Civilis not adopted in England and superceded in most places by Napoleonic law, but still the basis of South African law and a major influence on Scots law. (A simplification of course).
The thing I prefered about this video is that it made me realise just how little time, in terms of generations and therefore human memory, passed between the fall of Rome and the reign of Justinian.
This would be interesting. I am curious to how the Babylonian prieshood escaped to Pergamos and became part of the Hellenic rule with their famous altar of Zeus to which Jesus called that place the throne of Satan, from which place moved to Rome with their title Pontifex Maximus, as Ive heard.
Thank you Matt Baker for explaining again the long story of Rome Empire. I hope you also will create videos about "germanic" tribe like vandals, angles, saxon, lombard and others to the reference in the game of Imperator: Rome by paradox interactive. Also the hair color of the rulers may be excited topic.
I wouldn’t say that Constantine VI was removed for being a horrible ruler. He was tired of his mother pulling the strings, so Irene blinded him in retaliation.
Christianity at this point was embroiled over a heated debate on icon veneration. Leo III came from Syria (Isuaria is the Greek word for the Latin Syria) & had banned veneration of icons within the Empire (supposedly under the influence of Muslims, who had already conquered Syria during the reign of Heraclius) but majority of the Christian clergy were not pleased with the Emperor's interference in theological matters & promptly refused to obey his aniconic edicts or support his iconoclast policies. Leo III's aniconism & iconoclast zeal was maintained by his son Constantine V. Constantine's wife Irene was one of the majority of Christians who continued to venerate icons despite Imperial prohibition & state-sponsored persecution. In her capacity as regent, Irene completely stamped out aniconism by convening the Second Ecumemical Council of Constantinople, where icon veneration was declared to be mandatory for Chalcedonian Christians & aniconism as heresy. But when she saw that her son Constantine VI was starting to disobeying her in both theological (by showing affinity towards aniconism) & political matters under the influence of the advisors of his father, she had him executed out of both religious zeal & political considerations.
I am studying to be a history teacher and in about 9 months when I get hired full time, I will be putting this poster along with many others of yours up in my classroom!
Arguably the end of Western Rome is during Justinian's Gothic Wars, which completely and utterly destroyed Italy. Infrastructure, defences, farms and urban centres were all devastated by war, leading to massive population losses. These are what many people think happened in 476 but actually happened in the 6th century. A weakened Italy was ripe for the taking by the Lombards. But also if Justinian spent resources against the Sasanians instead of trying to take Italy maybe Eastern Rome wouldn't be weak enough by the time the Rashidun Caliphate turned up and the Levant and Africa wouldn't have been lost. I wonder if Justinian's invasion was inevitable and Amalasuintha's assassination was merely an excuse. If not, an interesting alternate history scenario would be "what if Amalasuintha wasn't assassinated?"
If he had the resource would have retaken Gaul. because , the Frankish king by that time denounced the roman emperor in the coins and also went to war on Justinian while he was reconquering Italy. Justinian had also reportedly made a statement with Ostrogothic envoys which made them so triggered that they went to Sassanid king and told him "Justinian has a desire to seize the entire earth". those desires can only be stopped if Persians declare war on the east. thankfully the war and the plague stopped him from doing that.
Even if Amalasuintha hadn't been assassinated, Justinian would have still invaded Italy. The Ostrogoths were the adherents of Arianism, a Christian doctrine that had been declared as heretical by the First Council of Nicaea. Eastern Roman Empire was the only state to patronize trinitarian Christianity while the Ostrogoths, Vandals & Visigoths (against whom Justinian fought) were all adherents of Arian Christianity. Justinian I was renowned in his own time for persecuting Jews & pagans and for his hostile attitude towards Nestorian & Miaphysite Christians. His reign was marked by the forced shutdown of all surviving pagan temples within the empire, which were then forcibly occupied by the Christian bishops & converted into churches, leading to the complete wipeout of the ancient Greek & Egyptian religions. Besides the Christians of those days didn't saw much difference between heretics & pagans, & the Romans' attitude towards the Germanic tribes can be considered as 'racist' under present day criteria. The fact that Arian Christians were much more amicable towards Jews compared to trinitarian Christians was also utilised in those times to justify war against them. Justinian's conquest of the Arian Ostrogoths & Vandals was the defining point when trinitarianism became the dominant form of Christianity & hastened the conversion of Visigoths, Franks & Anglo-Saxons into Chalcedonian Christianity (who till then viewed it with suspicion & considered it to be a ploy to undermine their sovereignty by indirectly bringing them under the Imperial sphere of influence).
So; *Constantine* the great was the son of *Constantinus*, his sister was *Constantia*. Above all that were his sons *Constantine*, *Constantinus* and *Constans*. Such a healthy family 😁
@@timothystamm3200 He was from the gens "Flavus". The gens was not important after emperor caracalla gave all free people citizenship and they all joined the gens "Aurelius". By the time of constantine, the gens only showed in purely legal documents and basically everyone had just ignored it. Later emperors would use the name "Flavius" to show their connection to constantine despite what gens they were born in
So does this mean Michael II is the earliest Roman emperor whose descendants can be traced to modern day? Because it looks like his ancestry can’t be traced back to any past emperors, and that there aren’t any earlier Roman betrothals to any other traceable family tree correct?
I have to say this is one of your most "fractured" videos with emperors skipping all over the place. But I have to say that's not your fault since this is the path of history and that you did a pretty decent job of tying it all together.
Too bad you didnt talk more about Majorian. This guy was the last Western Roman Emperor to try and reunite the Western Empire. And he could have achieved this had Recimer not betrayed him and killed him
Would you like to make a genealogy list review video of the Exilarchs of Babylon and other Post-Babylonian Exile Davidic lineages of Exilarchs and princes?? It might be interesting to see their connections with the dynasties of ancient Persia, with Hellenistic dynasties, Roman emperors, the Lagid dynasty of Egypt, the Herodian dynasty, Armenian royalty, the Palmyrene royalty, North African royalties from the early imperial Roman period to Moorish Roman (Byzantine annexed) period prior to the Islamic period, to pre-Islamic Yemen, the Horn of Africa and the kings of France as well as Anglo-Saxon kings, following the Princes of Navarre and his descendants's connections to the Carolingian Dynasty onward.
Luckily modern academia is coming around to disusing the term "byzantine empire." As you said, its an ahistorical term of convenience mixed with not a little bit of Enlightenment era derision. Academics in virtually every other discipline, and historians in other areas of specialization use endonyms as the valid term of reference, and while its a bit delayed in the "byzantine studies" departments, its coming inevitably as the trends of academia bleed into their silo. It pleases me to know that a term that began as a slur by 18th century historians will likely be replaced in my lifetime, or at least my children's era, by the Roman peoples' correct endonym.
I much prefer "Eastern Roman Empire" and always use it with people who will understand what I mean. But I still use "Byzantine Empire" with non history people who have a vague impression that the Roman Empire ended about 450 and are often surprised to hear that it lasted another 1000 years.
Eastern Roman Empire sounds like a good choice. It needs some distinguish from the original empire, given that it eventually even changed the goddamn language - if you need a marker for cultural self-identification, language is a good one. But if no one ever called it byzantine empire when it was standing, then we shouldn't name it that.
I can think of lots of exonyms still used particularly for placenames but also peoples, polities and dynasties. Personally I like 'Byzantine', it is shorter than "Eastern Roman" and we would be saying "Constantinopolitan" if that was not much longer as well. It also marks out the ways in which that empire differed from the earlier full Roman one.
@@MatthewMcVeagh roman is shorter than byzantine or constaninopolitanian. Armchair classicists just can't bring themselves to give them that name because of misplaced pride.
@@NikeonaBike Yes it is... but it doesn't make clear we are talking about the mediaeval, Greek-speaking Christian empire that didn't include the founding city that produced the name 'Roman', rather than the earlier ancient, pagan, Latin-speaking one that was politically and geographically based around that city. As for classicists, I am not one and there is no pride in the (true) Roman empire to defend. I don't actually like it. I just prefer realistic and honest historical perspectives based on practical reality rather than names or hindsight agendas. In practical terms after the Roman empire had split, converted to Christianity and then the western half fell, the eastern half became a new entity with new qualities, whatever they called themselves. The underlying cultural qualities were Hellenistic, and even if the geopolitical successors of the Byzantines were the Ottomans, the cultural heirs are the Greeks. Nothing to do with Rome or Italy.
Not only did the Byzantines call themselves Romans, modern Greeks did that as well. At least up to a point, as you'll still find older people referring to themselves as 'Romioi' (Ρωμιοί). But since this is not fitting to the main 'doctrine' of the Greek nation-state, it is falling out of use.
Good heavens! Imagine trying to keep this all straight without this excellent chart! No wonder the peasants and other commoners basically were like "Eh. Same song, different verse".
14:29 both sackings of Rome in the 5th century were pretty mild, the Visigoths only really looted the city for food and the Vandals mostly seized old war loot from Vespasian and Titus's time. compare that to Aquileia in northern Italy which was completely destroyed and depopulated..... Rome actually bounced back fairly quickly and was even the residence of the Western Emperors in the last decade leading up to 476. It wasn't until the Justinians Gothic War a century later that left the city in ruins and reduced to the size of a village.
@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 Well, technically the Title was _vacant_ but still existed Anyways it would be 1327 years P.S. The last "claimant" to the Italian Throne/Western Roman Emperor Title before Charlemagne's coronation wasn't Augustulus nor Theodahad, it was actually a Sicilian Usurper who proclaimed himself Western Emperor in 717, which is why the period between Theodahad and Charlemagne (634-800) is not counted entirely
Valens wasn't replaced... he had died in battle against the Goths It depends on whether or not at this point, if Theodosius II is or isn't part of the "old" Roman Emperors, or as just a Byzantine Emperor.... If he is a Roman Emperor ( by which they considered it still just one Empire at the time ) then yes, he's the longest reigning one... If not, and he's just Byzantine Emperor, thinking the two halves of the Empire were now separate, then the longest ruler is still Augustus in the west... And in the East, its Basil II ( The Bulgar Slayer ) who reigned from 976 - 1025. ... Kind of upsetting Matt didn't go into detail of Majorian's reign, as if it weren't for Ricimer, then Majorian could have put the Empire back together, but Ricimer killed him just because he could start a planned conquest for Africa...
12:50 I'd just like to add that nobody today really wot the Hun leader's name. *Atilla* was actually nickname first given to him by the Goths, and literally means "Daddy."
It looks like you already cut this out of the video, but as you know, Ostra means East, Vestra is West. Germanic Pagans still have a festival today called Ostara, which is East-er. Perhaps it was even Charlemagne himself who mixed the festival in with Christian tradition? (Note: not according to Bede, who said it is based on the West Germanic Spring goddess Eostre?). There were no Cee sounds in those days, so Oh-doe-ace-er is perhaps more like Odd-Wacker.
thank you pointing out that Western Rome didn't crumble into dust in 475. the people on the Italian and Iberian peninsula at the period in question would have looked at someone saying the empire had disintegrated with incredulity. they were still paying imperial taxes. like the dissolution of the British empire, the process was long and drawn out, starting at the edges and working its way inward. actually, comparing it to the Brit dissolution does the Romans a disservice. the Brits lost theirs much faster...much much faster.
those people were crazy. proud to be iberian, scot/irish, and viking instead 😊 I am mysteriously 40% italian.. somehow through my french. might figure it out some day. lots of diversity after all that battling.
In retrospect - the kings and emperors were more of a pawn than the subjects they controlled. For what? For things that doesn't exist but labelled by minds that I doubt even it knows.
For your Christian Denominations Family Tree, can you please give more details on the various sects of Gnostic Christianity? Can you also explore Johannines vs Thomasines?
I’m still facepalming at John VIII basically betraying Murad II when the latter planned to become a Roman vassal. That’s about when I believe the Roman Empire was well and truly doomed.
1. The video is in english not latin 2. It was NOT pronounced like that, even in latin the "Ae" is pronounced /ae/ not /aI/ like in "eye" the "s" is a redacted S, not the same as an english S sound
I love how they supposedly know all of this and I'm an American Italian yet we don't know anything that happened in the middle ages or the dark ages. It's comical when you think of it.
Hi UsefulCharts, could you please lokk at the Family tree of Polish monarchs? On wikipedia it says that tsar Mikolay II (last tsar of Russia) comes from Kazimierz Jagiellończyk IV (king of Poland)
@@UsefulCharts Thanks for asking. Mostly it's secondary colours contrasting with one of their primaries. Teal next to blue may be more difficult for someone who is green-weak. If you have purple next to yellow, green or brown though the difference would be very clear. If you want to test it out, I believe there are filters built into Mac OS and Windows that you can enable.
I love the content, but I would love it more if you pronounced the names in a way that sounded ancient. That would be a cherry at the top. But great work anyway. Thanks for sharing.
ERRATUM: There has two major flaws in your genealogical list of Roman Emperors. First off, nothing guarantees that Constantine converted into Christianity following his victory onto his rivals. From as far as we know, Constantine was devoted to the Sol Invictus cult, who was at that time the Imperial Roman religion of the elites and a replacement to the previous Greek Egyptian Isis Mysteries cult and Oriental Mithraic cult, en vogue in Rome in prior centuries. The symbol whom Constantine used was actually said to be a sign he has seen while a dream vision given by Sol Invictus. Afterward, he found out that said symbol was equally used by early Christians and considered to probe further into that religion, suspecting thay the figure of Christ worshipped by both Christians and his Greek mother, and Sol Invictus might be two avatars - or numinous made flesh - of the same higher deity, e.g. Jupiter Dionysos (who was associated to thr Orential gods Zeus Sabaios, Jove or Yahveh from Judaism) . In spite of Constantine's newfound interest toward Christianity, many assumes that he has been express-converted _posthumously_ by Christian clercs on his d*athbed. He might have passed away a "Pagan" . Second, Romano-Brittonic Co-Emperor Consrantine III was actually distantly related to some of the Gallic-Roman ancestors of the Constantinian dynasty. Your remark was inaccurate.
About the last point Charlemagne also married a daughter of a Lombard king, but soon annulled the marriage and invaded the Lombards instead So I wouldn’t trust him too much on that proposal
Great vid,👍;wow,didn't know about Charlemagne's proposal of marriage to Byzantine Empress Irene ! 😑 What did the Pope and the E.Orthodox Patriarch (of Cons'ple) have to say about the marr.proposal?IF it had occurred,would there had been renewed attempts to reunify Christianity?🤔
I believe the wasn't an official split by then, just drift in different directions due to reduced social/intellectual communication (the schism was in the 11th century, and it really solidified after 1204)
@@UsefulCharts most color blind people only see blue and yellow. because of this they don't see difference between red and green. purple is a mix of red and blue, this means purple looks blue to them.
Buy the new chart:
usefulcharts.com/collections/royal-family-trees/products/roman-emperors-family-tree
do one for the Emperor of Mexico sēl-vü-ple.
I love your videos and I’ve been binging them over the last week. For us color-blind people, the Blue/Purple colors representing East/West can look identical. May I suggest using colours further apart when differentiating like this (eg blue+red/yellow/orange/green)). If that’s not possible, at least making one lighter and the other darker makes a huge difference.
Seeing these charts at the end makes me realise how short our recorded history is.
Assuming a generation is 25 years, it only takes roughly 80 generations to go back to the times of Augustus.
We as a species have advanced so much in so little time it's incredible.
A generation is 20 years.
@@ptolemeeselenion1542not these days at least lol
25 seems a bit long for just one generation, back then at least. 20 was probably closer to the average.
...or so, we insistently keep telling ourselves,
just to make sure we keep believing our own propaganda.
For some comparison, there is a baby of the Georgian Bagrationi family, Bagrat de Bagration, who was born in 2021.
He is supposedly the 76th-great-grandson of Marc Antony, contemporary to Augustus.
Although there are some tenuous links in this line of descent, it's probably the most likely 'descent from antiquity' claim in Europe.
A small correction for the chart. The picture for Irene is not Irene of Athens, it is Irene of Hungary wife of John II Komnenos.
Oh, that's a pretty notable mistake imho. That's a shame, maybe he could change it without altering the rest of the model.
Thanks. I'll make a note to change the poster version on the next printing.
@@UsefulCharts It’s not a big deal. Amazing work on the chart though. You’ve gotten me into genealogy and I really thank you for that.
@@Cheemsarion it is. He sells that stuff and they must be correct. He should have done better research
@@marcopolo2395 he just said he’d fix it, cool your jets
6:49 Constantine did not called his new capital city “Constantinople” that name would come much later after him instead he called it “Nova Roma” or New Rome.
Some comment about the title of "The Great". The title can mean a title of honor, but it can also be used to differentiate between people with the same name, with the older one being the Great/Elder and the younger one being the Lesser/Younger. All of the Roman emperors whose title is the Great in our sources were the first of multiple emperors with the same name, and the title isn't given to them by the sources until after another emperor with the same name comes to power, which makes the latter interpretation of the title more likely. The only exception is Constantine, whose title in Greek is different (and should really be translated as The Greatest).
Constantine didn’t renamed Byzantion to “Constantinople”. He built the whole city from the ground of the old one (which was basically a glorified small town at that point) where he intended it to be called something along the lines of “Nova Roma” or “Roma Secunda”. The name Constantinople first arose as popular unnofical folk name to refer to the new city (as in “Constantine’s City”) until it eventually became the official name of the city
Was gonna say this.
When did it officially change then?
Regarding Irene as the first Roman Empress Regnant, there's actually a claim from the mid-270s that possibly precede her. After the Emperor Aurelian was assassinated, the elites of the empire were gunshy about grabbing power, since he was the popular Restorer of the World, so both the Army and the Senate kept inviting each other to select the next emperor and thus look like the guy who killed him for base ambition, and thus be the target for revenge. Some histories have this interregnum at six months, though popular consensus is closer to a month or six weeks. However long this interregnum however, there are coins minted in the name of Ulpia Servina, Augusta and widow of Aurelian, leading some to believe she actually presided over the empire in some form until Emperor Tacitus was finally selected by the Senate.
A note about Constantine's nickname.
Calling him "The Great" is actually a habit of modern historians. Up to the XIXth century no one called him that.
My source : italian historian Alessandro Barbero, who explains this in his book "Constantine the Winner" ("Costantino il Vincitore" in italian, "victor" beign one of the epithets that Constantine chose for himself).
Why are u using XIX instead of 19. That’s weird
@@gazey roman numerals are still common in Europe
@@gazey In romance countries (and others too) roman numerals are used to denote centuries, and they also have many other uses that english language doesn't employ.
@@gazey oops, sorry! It's a latinism! I am a native romance language speaker, and when I was writing I forgot that in english centuries are spelled with arabic numerals (in italian, spanish, french etc. they are spelled with roman numerals).
Hmm ok
Oh yay a new video!! My daughter is going to be so happy when she wakes up tomorrow!! She's 10 and she loves your videos. She would watch all of them in a weekend if I let her haha ❤
14:24 - This enraged the Vandal King who punished Western Rome severely
Finally I've been waiting since the first video
Corpus Juris Civilis not adopted in England and superceded in most places by Napoleonic law, but still the basis of South African law and a major influence on Scots law. (A simplification of course).
The thing I prefered about this video is that it made me realise just how little time, in terms of generations and therefore human memory, passed between the fall of Rome and the reign of Justinian.
Been waiting for part 2, could u do some family tress of ancient royal families like Pontus or the Anatolian kingdoms?
This would be interesting. I am curious to how the Babylonian prieshood escaped to Pergamos and became part of the Hellenic rule with their famous altar of Zeus to which Jesus called that place the throne of Satan, from which place moved to Rome with their title Pontifex Maximus, as Ive heard.
Thank you Matt Baker for explaining again the long story of Rome Empire.
I hope you also will create videos about "germanic" tribe like vandals, angles, saxon, lombard and others to the reference in the game of Imperator: Rome by paradox interactive. Also the hair color of the rulers may be excited topic.
Really like this series! Well done :)
Mad to think that the Papal States were around until 1870.
That's 1,114 years! And we never hear about them.
Well many Holy Roman Emperors would argue they were a vassal to their feudal kingdom.
I wouldn’t say that Constantine VI was removed for being a horrible ruler. He was tired of his mother pulling the strings, so Irene blinded him in retaliation.
This changes nothing.
kinda funny that I first learned of them from the Orthodox Church calling them both saints
Christianity at this point was embroiled over a heated debate on icon veneration. Leo III came from Syria (Isuaria is the Greek word for the Latin Syria) & had banned veneration of icons within the Empire (supposedly under the influence of Muslims, who had already conquered Syria during the reign of Heraclius) but majority of the Christian clergy were not pleased with the Emperor's interference in theological matters & promptly refused to obey his aniconic edicts or support his iconoclast policies. Leo III's aniconism & iconoclast zeal was maintained by his son Constantine V. Constantine's wife Irene was one of the majority of Christians who continued to venerate icons despite Imperial prohibition & state-sponsored persecution. In her capacity as regent, Irene completely stamped out aniconism by convening the Second Ecumemical Council of Constantinople, where icon veneration was declared to be mandatory for Chalcedonian Christians & aniconism as heresy. But when she saw that her son Constantine VI was starting to disobeying her in both theological (by showing affinity towards aniconism) & political matters under the influence of the advisors of his father, she had him executed out of both religious zeal & political considerations.
I am studying to be a history teacher and in about 9 months when I get hired full time, I will be putting this poster along with many others of yours up in my classroom!
rooting for you. Teachers are the foundation of a brighter future
Amazing
Thanks!
Arguably the end of Western Rome is during Justinian's Gothic Wars, which completely and utterly destroyed Italy.
Infrastructure, defences, farms and urban centres were all devastated by war, leading to massive population losses.
These are what many people think happened in 476 but actually happened in the 6th century.
A weakened Italy was ripe for the taking by the Lombards.
But also if Justinian spent resources against the Sasanians instead of trying to take Italy maybe Eastern Rome wouldn't be weak enough by the time the Rashidun Caliphate turned up and the Levant and Africa wouldn't have been lost.
I wonder if Justinian's invasion was inevitable and Amalasuintha's assassination was merely an excuse.
If not, an interesting alternate history scenario would be "what if Amalasuintha wasn't assassinated?"
If he had the resource would have retaken Gaul. because , the Frankish king by that time denounced the roman emperor in the coins and also went to war on Justinian while he was reconquering Italy. Justinian had also reportedly made a statement with Ostrogothic envoys which made them so triggered that they went to Sassanid king and told him "Justinian has a desire to seize the entire earth". those desires can only be stopped if Persians declare war on the east. thankfully the war and the plague stopped him from doing that.
Even if Amalasuintha hadn't been assassinated, Justinian would have still invaded Italy. The Ostrogoths were the adherents of Arianism, a Christian doctrine that had been declared as heretical by the First Council of Nicaea. Eastern Roman Empire was the only state to patronize trinitarian Christianity while the Ostrogoths, Vandals & Visigoths (against whom Justinian fought) were all adherents of Arian Christianity. Justinian I was renowned in his own time for persecuting Jews & pagans and for his hostile attitude towards Nestorian & Miaphysite Christians. His reign was marked by the forced shutdown of all surviving pagan temples within the empire, which were then forcibly occupied by the Christian bishops & converted into churches, leading to the complete wipeout of the ancient Greek & Egyptian religions. Besides the Christians of those days didn't saw much difference between heretics & pagans, & the Romans' attitude towards the Germanic tribes can be considered as 'racist' under present day criteria. The fact that Arian Christians were much more amicable towards Jews compared to trinitarian Christians was also utilised in those times to justify war against them. Justinian's conquest of the Arian Ostrogoths & Vandals was the defining point when trinitarianism became the dominant form of Christianity & hastened the conversion of Visigoths, Franks & Anglo-Saxons into Chalcedonian Christianity (who till then viewed it with suspicion & considered it to be a ploy to undermine their sovereignty by indirectly bringing them under the Imperial sphere of influence).
So; *Constantine* the great was the son of *Constantinus*, his sister was *Constantia*. Above all that were his sons *Constantine*, *Constantinus* and *Constans*.
Such a healthy family 😁
just ask Louis XVII or Charles XII
Such a nominative *constance* .
Well that might mean we just know him by his Gens (extended family) name and thus everyone around him would have a similar gens or gens derived name.
@@timothystamm3200 He was from the gens "Flavus". The gens was not important after emperor caracalla gave all free people citizenship and they all joined the gens "Aurelius". By the time of constantine, the gens only showed in purely legal documents and basically everyone had just ignored it. Later emperors would use the name "Flavius" to show their connection to constantine despite what gens they were born in
Imagine a dinner table convo.
It was amazing video. The Roman history is full of action.
7:20 “However, CONstantine II and CONstans eventually came into CONflict with each other.”
I see what you did there
Such an excellent overview of this topic. Matt you've done it again!
So does this mean Michael II is the earliest Roman emperor whose descendants can be traced to modern day?
Because it looks like his ancestry can’t be traced back to any past emperors, and that there aren’t any earlier Roman betrothals to any other traceable family tree correct?
I have to say this is one of your most "fractured" videos with emperors skipping all over the place. But I have to say that's not your fault since this is the path of history and that you did a pretty decent job of tying it all together.
So Con-stantine II, Con-stants, and Con-stantius II were con-stantly in con-flict with each other. Easy to remember.
Too bad you didnt talk more about Majorian. This guy was the last Western Roman Emperor to try and reunite the Western Empire. And he could have achieved this had Recimer not betrayed him and killed him
Would you like to make a genealogy list review video of the Exilarchs of Babylon and other Post-Babylonian Exile Davidic lineages of Exilarchs and princes?? It might be interesting to see their connections with the dynasties of ancient Persia, with Hellenistic dynasties, Roman emperors, the Lagid dynasty of Egypt, the Herodian dynasty, Armenian royalty, the Palmyrene royalty, North African royalties from the early imperial Roman period to Moorish Roman (Byzantine annexed) period prior to the Islamic period, to pre-Islamic Yemen, the Horn of Africa and the kings of France as well as Anglo-Saxon kings, following the Princes of Navarre and his descendants's connections to the Carolingian Dynasty onward.
Luckily modern academia is coming around to disusing the term "byzantine empire." As you said, its an ahistorical term of convenience mixed with not a little bit of Enlightenment era derision. Academics in virtually every other discipline, and historians in other areas of specialization use endonyms as the valid term of reference, and while its a bit delayed in the "byzantine studies" departments, its coming inevitably as the trends of academia bleed into their silo. It pleases me to know that a term that began as a slur by 18th century historians will likely be replaced in my lifetime, or at least my children's era, by the Roman peoples' correct endonym.
I much prefer "Eastern Roman Empire" and always use it with people who will understand what I mean. But I still use "Byzantine Empire" with non history people who have a vague impression that the Roman Empire ended about 450 and are often surprised to hear that it lasted another 1000 years.
Eastern Roman Empire sounds like a good choice. It needs some distinguish from the original empire, given that it eventually even changed the goddamn language - if you need a marker for cultural self-identification, language is a good one. But if no one ever called it byzantine empire when it was standing, then we shouldn't name it that.
I can think of lots of exonyms still used particularly for placenames but also peoples, polities and dynasties. Personally I like 'Byzantine', it is shorter than "Eastern Roman" and we would be saying "Constantinopolitan" if that was not much longer as well. It also marks out the ways in which that empire differed from the earlier full Roman one.
@@MatthewMcVeagh roman is shorter than byzantine or constaninopolitanian. Armchair classicists just can't bring themselves to give them that name because of misplaced pride.
@@NikeonaBike Yes it is... but it doesn't make clear we are talking about the mediaeval, Greek-speaking Christian empire that didn't include the founding city that produced the name 'Roman', rather than the earlier ancient, pagan, Latin-speaking one that was politically and geographically based around that city.
As for classicists, I am not one and there is no pride in the (true) Roman empire to defend. I don't actually like it. I just prefer realistic and honest historical perspectives based on practical reality rather than names or hindsight agendas. In practical terms after the Roman empire had split, converted to Christianity and then the western half fell, the eastern half became a new entity with new qualities, whatever they called themselves. The underlying cultural qualities were Hellenistic, and even if the geopolitical successors of the Byzantines were the Ottomans, the cultural heirs are the Greeks. Nothing to do with Rome or Italy.
Good job Mat! Keep up the good work!
So very awesome. I can't wait for the next one!!!
Everyday I hopped on TH-cam since Part 1, I was hoping to see Part 2 uploaded. Happy Friday!
Another amazing video
Not only did the Byzantines call themselves Romans, modern Greeks did that as well. At least up to a point, as you'll still find older people referring to themselves as 'Romioi' (Ρωμιοί).
But since this is not fitting to the main 'doctrine' of the Greek nation-state, it is falling out of use.
Good heavens! Imagine trying to keep this all straight without this excellent chart! No wonder the peasants and other commoners basically were like "Eh. Same song, different verse".
I don't know much about Arcadius, but those eyes are staring into my soul. Dude's clearly seen some shit
14:29 both sackings of Rome in the 5th century were pretty mild, the Visigoths only really looted the city for food and the Vandals mostly seized old war loot from Vespasian and Titus's time. compare that to Aquileia in northern Italy which was completely destroyed and depopulated..... Rome actually bounced back fairly quickly and was even the residence of the Western Emperors in the last decade leading up to 476. It wasn't until the Justinians Gothic War a century later that left the city in ruins and reduced to the size of a village.
16:47: Totally Random Fact #1 -
The Title of “King of Italy” existed for 1470 years, from 476 to 1946
Excluding the period it stopped existing between the collapse of the HRE and Umberto's rise to the throne
And also the period between Theodohad and Charlemagne
@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 Well, technically the Title was _vacant_ but still existed
Anyways it would be 1327 years
P.S. The last "claimant" to the Italian Throne/Western Roman Emperor Title before Charlemagne's coronation wasn't Augustulus nor Theodahad, it was actually a Sicilian Usurper who proclaimed himself Western Emperor in 717, which is why the period between Theodahad and Charlemagne (634-800) is not counted entirely
Great work, love it.
Valens wasn't replaced... he had died in battle against the Goths
It depends on whether or not at this point, if Theodosius II is or isn't part of the "old" Roman Emperors, or as just a Byzantine Emperor....
If he is a Roman Emperor ( by which they considered it still just one Empire at the time ) then yes, he's the longest reigning one...
If not, and he's just Byzantine Emperor, thinking the two halves of the Empire were now separate, then the longest ruler is still Augustus in the west...
And in the East, its Basil II ( The Bulgar Slayer ) who reigned from 976 - 1025.
...
Kind of upsetting Matt didn't go into detail of Majorian's reign, as if it weren't for Ricimer, then Majorian could have put the Empire back together, but Ricimer killed him just because he could start a planned conquest for Africa...
the term byzantine is mostly used after heraclius.
Rome began with Romulus, and ended with Romulus. A perfect ending.
It was really Constantino XI
Rome actually still exist ...
wrong
Yay part 2
12:50
I'd just like to add that nobody today really wot the Hun leader's name.
*Atilla* was actually nickname first given to him by the Goths, and literally means "Daddy."
It looks like you already cut this out of the video, but as you know, Ostra means East, Vestra is West. Germanic Pagans still have a festival today called Ostara, which is East-er. Perhaps it was even Charlemagne himself who mixed the festival in with Christian tradition? (Note: not according to Bede, who said it is based on the West Germanic Spring goddess Eostre?). There were no Cee sounds in those days, so Oh-doe-ace-er is perhaps more like Odd-Wacker.
thank you pointing out that Western Rome didn't crumble into dust
in 475.
the people on the Italian and Iberian peninsula at the period in question
would have looked at someone saying the empire had disintegrated
with incredulity. they were still paying imperial taxes.
like the dissolution of the British empire, the process was long and drawn out,
starting at the edges and working its way inward.
actually, comparing it to the Brit dissolution does the Romans a disservice.
the Brits lost theirs much faster...much much faster.
I'm so early, Remus is still alive
How is it only today that I noticed that the image outside the window changes depending on the video?
All I remember from part 1 is they all murdered each other. It was like a murder drinking game. Hopefully part 2 will be a bit more civilised?
welp, get ready to have you liver pumped, because I doubt anyone would associate post-third century Rome with "civilised"
@@1224chrisng - I was only joking. Besides, Civilisation means to live in cities, or to become a civilian. I learned that playing Civ on the PC. :)
Really awesome video and I love your channel! You have the ostrogoths and the visigoths switched around, though: ostro = east & visi = west ❤❤❤
Fantastic video keep it up you're doing amazing job
those people were crazy. proud to be iberian, scot/irish, and viking instead 😊 I am mysteriously 40% italian.. somehow through my french. might figure it out some day. lots of diversity after all that battling.
In retrospect - the kings and emperors were more of a pawn than the subjects they controlled. For what? For things that doesn't exist but labelled by minds that I doubt even it knows.
I would love to see Matt go over several probable descent from antiquity theories.
So this stuff with Aetus was Issac Asimov's inspiration for Bel Riose in Foundation and Empire?
Isn't the East chart also being remade?
Or was it just the Roman and Western charts?
The charts I bought are excellent 👍
I love these videos! It would be awesome to hear what was happening with the popes while the emperors were transitioning in and out of power.
In terms of the Habsburg line, you may want to check out the Osterreich family line since the Osterreich were siblings to the Habsburgs.
For your Christian Denominations Family Tree, can you please give more details on the various sects of Gnostic Christianity?
Can you also explore Johannines vs Thomasines?
Will the amorian dynasty be added to the chart? The north/east one starts with basil
I’m still facepalming at John VIII basically betraying Murad II when the latter planned to become a Roman vassal. That’s about when I believe the Roman Empire was well and truly doomed.
Pretty sure that Leo III and Leo IV have the same profile picture.
Love me some charts that are useful..
13:14 you mispronounced Flavius Aetius name. Aetius is pronounced “Eye-ti-yoos”
1. The video is in english not latin
2. It was NOT pronounced like that, even in latin
the "Ae" is pronounced /ae/ not /aI/ like in "eye"
the "s" is a redacted S, not the same as an english S sound
I love how they supposedly know all of this and I'm an American Italian yet we don't know anything that happened in the middle ages or the dark ages. It's comical when you think of it.
Is there no Part 2? Or European Royal East?
Great history lesson 👌
Do you ship your charts to the UK?
Majorian was a badass he would have surpassed even Aurelian.
Really, such melodrama.
Hi UsefulCharts, could you please lokk at the Family tree of Polish monarchs? On wikipedia it says that tsar Mikolay II (last tsar of Russia) comes from Kazimierz Jagiellończyk IV (king of Poland)
You should continue with the Byzantine emperors, not the frankish ones
he had already made one.
Am I the only one who thinks the coins depicting Leo III and Leo IV are the same image?
Alboin elbowing his way through Italy lol
As a person with deuteranopia, i didn't realise the colour distinction between east/west empire until you mentioned it 🤣
A curious fact, emperor anthemius was the last emperor from the constantinian dynasty instead of julian
I love your charts and videos, but the choice of blue and purple for east and west makes it very difficult to read for my colour-blind eyes. :(
Noted. Are there any other colors on the palette I use that are also troublesome?
@@UsefulCharts Thanks for asking. Mostly it's secondary colours contrasting with one of their primaries. Teal next to blue may be more difficult for someone who is green-weak. If you have purple next to yellow, green or brown though the difference would be very clear. If you want to test it out, I believe there are filters built into Mac OS and Windows that you can enable.
I love the content, but I would love it more if you pronounced the names in a way that sounded ancient. That would be a cherry at the top. But great work anyway. Thanks for sharing.
can you share the family tree of lee house in singapore
Just a note: the meaning of Chi Rho in the context of Constantine is disputed and may not have been a Christian symbol to Constantine.
ERRATUM: There has two major flaws in your genealogical list of Roman Emperors.
First off, nothing guarantees that Constantine converted into Christianity following his victory onto his rivals. From as far as we know, Constantine was devoted to the Sol Invictus cult, who was at that time the Imperial Roman religion of the elites and a replacement to the previous Greek Egyptian Isis Mysteries cult and Oriental Mithraic cult, en vogue in Rome in prior centuries.
The symbol whom Constantine used was actually said to be a sign he has seen while a dream vision given by Sol Invictus. Afterward, he found out that said symbol was equally used by early Christians and considered to probe further into that religion, suspecting thay the figure of Christ worshipped by both Christians and his Greek mother, and Sol Invictus might be two avatars - or numinous made flesh - of the same higher deity, e.g. Jupiter Dionysos (who was associated to thr Orential gods Zeus Sabaios, Jove or Yahveh from Judaism) . In spite of Constantine's newfound interest toward Christianity, many assumes that he has been express-converted _posthumously_ by Christian clercs on his d*athbed. He might have passed away a "Pagan" .
Second, Romano-Brittonic Co-Emperor Consrantine III was actually distantly related to some of the Gallic-Roman ancestors of the Constantinian dynasty. Your remark was inaccurate.
And why do you fail to mention the connection of the Constantinian dynasty to the Flavian gens?
24:45 captions say "Heracles"
Was Constantine and his father married to two sisters 😮??! Nothing should surprise us anymore but come on!!
True history of Rome
About the last point
Charlemagne also married a daughter of a Lombard king, but soon annulled the marriage and invaded the Lombards instead
So I wouldn’t trust him too much on that proposal
15:23 I laughed here 😭😭
I finished watching everything
Where was Naughtius Maximus?
It says some much about roman culture that their longest reigning monarch was only 42 years
16:10 I LOVE your channel, but I will never forgive you for calling Majorian a puppet emperor!
Great vid,👍;wow,didn't know about Charlemagne's proposal of marriage to Byzantine Empress Irene ! 😑
What did the Pope and the E.Orthodox Patriarch (of Cons'ple) have to say about the marr.proposal?IF it had occurred,would there had been renewed attempts to reunify Christianity?🤔
I believe the wasn't an official split by then, just drift in different directions due to reduced social/intellectual communication (the schism was in the 11th century, and it really solidified after 1204)
Hey!
My ancestor was Charlemagne !
What my homie do?
Did he do good?
As person that has color blindness... I definitely couldn't see the difference between the blue and purple.
Good to know. Are there any other colors in the color palette that I usually use that don't work well?
@@UsefulCharts red and green i guess?
@@UsefulCharts most color blind people only see blue and yellow. because of this they don't see difference between red and green. purple is a mix of red and blue, this means purple looks blue to them.
You plebs keep thinking that the Barbarian Theodoric was Emperor. Ew.
Haben wir auch gemacht, großen Familien vor vorfahren
Note:maximian and Diocletian are brothers
Oh come on, Irene!