Who will benefit? Global capitalists of course. The division of nations by immigration, feminism and butique sexualities help to subjugate the populace into total submission by the rich 1%. The cherry on the top is that both the mainstream left and right on their own help to bring this about. They are both the useful idiots of the global financier capitalist class.
@@Miodrag.Vukomanovic for some reason your comment was removed by youtube, but i do agree, it is the age of war, unfortunately. here is a sad song about how war destroys society th-cam.com/video/zvdbDw5bXnQ/w-d-xo.html science studies show that listening to sad songs cheers people up when they are depressed.
Under Theodoric Roman politicians noted that while the old offices still existed, they were only symbolic. Cassiodorus made a conscious effort to collect as many books as he could because he could see what was happening.
@@floridaman318 lmao imagine hoarding a ton of deliberately historically inaccurate works just to fuck with whoever might find them after the apocalypse
The number of civil wars the Romans fought was insane. That's the main reason for the fall of the Western Roman Empire. So much pointless carnage. The fact that the empire lasted as long as it did was a miracle. And civil wars helped destroy the Byzantine Empire especially during the Palaiologos dynasty. They kept killing each other and made themselves easy targets.
@@kitkat47chrysalis95 LMAO yes we have, they just were not between 2 huge groups. Think about how every decade a city was burned down, turned into a waste land. Oh wait, you wouldn't know about that because the ones who cause it do not report on it and play it down. You think MLK was a peaceful guy?
Explain why the Eastern Empire took so long to fall despite going through even more then. They were so much worse than the West, yet the West folded much quicker.
It would be hard to get volunteers to join the Legions only to fight other legions in civil wars or get sent off to some distant Provence to fight barbarians hordes while Vandals, Goths and Huns were looting and burning one's home town. Excellent take, Thanks Maiorianus.
If your army is fighting itself in the blind pursuit of power instead of fighting the enemy at the gates, that does not portend well for the longevity of your empire.
It would be hard to get a man to fight a war for the same people oppressing him with high taxes, a brutal justice system and the same people taking away his right to bear arms… all for a meagre salary and no pension.
@Primordial Pursuits it is not the same situation the reason why the Romans had recruitment problems was not because of the moral reservations of the average a Man it was because the Roman state did not offer enough money
I know I said this on another video but: Funfact: if you dont count later reconquests, Rome (the city) started with a Romulus and ended with a Romulus. Constantinople was started by a Constantine and ended with a Constantine (Interestingly enough, Constantinople could have also been reclaimed by a Constantine had the Greeks succeeded in the Greco-Turkish War and fully carried out the Megali Idea.) Edit: There's many more like this in the comment thread below (including Julius and Brutus)
The New Roman Empire also developed its theme militia system... The Romans waited too long on militia development, presumably because they were afraid that military force beyond their control would become rebellious.
Tyrants and the corrupt are afraid of militias and their citizens bearing arms. The politicians that serve the will of the people aren't afraid of that.
The Senate was completely fine with Odoacer. As long as they didn't have to endure the horrors of having an Easterner (like Anthemius or Nepos), and - more importantly - they were treated with respect, they didn't care who was in charge. An excellent book on the subject is "Patricians and Emperors". Hughes does a good job of navigating the era by analyzing every little contradiction in the sources.
Usual roman, and great empires in general, dynamics! Anthemius was the last energetic emperor and the last hope, yet the senate and Anthemius were still two separate parties with their own interests and legitimate views about each other. Julius Nepos was also one of the remnants of West Rome, yet it's not like he would've been appreciated had he had the chance to reconquer Italy.
Who cares what the senate thought. It had been defunct for 300 years or more. When Odoacer became King: He was in charge. And he himself counted himself as a Germanic King. Accept it. Your narrative, is pop history: an opinion of the moment that will pass.
As an Eastern European this hits home. Degeneracy,decedance,weakness and most of all amorality has taken the best over us.If a country invades mine in the future i couldnt care less dying for the majority here.
Most people under an empire would rather see it collapse bc most of those people are poor ass peasants who are beinf exploited. Those who want to prevent collapse are always the ruling elite/military. Everyone else is gonna get fucked one way or another so what's the difference? If you can distract the masses you keep people docile but once the central government starts making big mistakes or stops preventing disaster you might as well jump ship.
By 450 AD, there were really no more baths, no more arenas with entertainment, very much fewer people as crops failed and people in all 'civilized' places are unable to do the basic survival skills activities and so the former Roman Empire was overrun by barbarians who knew how to hunt, fight, cook on open fires, who didn't care if they had uncomfortable places to live and who were utterly indifferent to civilization just like we see in all our major cities today.
So we can speculate that people were not allowed to take up arms because authorities were worried that in many places they would rebel. That is, assuming that higher, for example provincial authorities knew of widespread injustice. Or the lower authorities knew and opposed the idea whenever it came about. And I suspect this might had been on the agenda at some point, for instance: after the Crisis Of The 3rd Century. That is truly fascinating idea. Let us not forget that somewhere in the early 3rd century there was that reform/imperial edict that made everyone a citizen and consequently, Roman aristocrats were gradually removed from the army's command core. Emperor's no longer recruited from among the Roman aristocracy for the most part. Rome's Praetorian Guard ceased to exist after like.. battle of Mulvian bridge? Or almost a century later, after Frigidus? Anyway, that factor also counted in. Native Romans had less and less control. Christian Emperors from other provinces of Rome; that is from outside Italy, disliked Roman aristocracy and this is why they favored Christianity so much- to rival Roman faith. I'm bringing that out in here because I don't think it came about in any of the videos... That detest toward Roman senatorial aristocracy might have also been a reason why more people gradually favored Christianity and Christian emperors more and more.. Until at last it didn't matter because it didn't lessen the frequency of civil war, injustice and heavy taxation.
Corruption was extremely high during all Roman Empire. Cicero became famous by denouncing governors who pillaged the conquered provinces. Difference was that latifundia (large properties cultivated by slaves or serves) where much less extended during Republic and early Empire, leaving more men able and willing to take arms against invaders. but latifundia was much more profitable for high society, who had the connection to extend it by usurious loans to small exploitations, near monopoly of trade, cheaper man labour, and also bribing the judges to illegaly acquire land.
Personally, I think that they are enormous parallels between the fall of Western Roman Empire and the disolution of the USSR. Neither of them really fall, the reality is that this states started to slowly dissintegrate until they didn't have any sense to exist so they were replace for another type of organitsation.
Just so, it is said of the 4th gentile empire with regard to Israel (in the book of their prophet Daniel) that it will be comprised of 5 stages: *unified Roman Empire *east-west balance of power *one world gov't *10 kingdom world gov't *the Antichrist's world rule. If Russia is Rosh (ezekiel 38:3, "chief prince": rosh), then when she invades Israel acc to the prophecy, she with the entire east will be demolished, leaving a one world gov't. Babylon fell the same way to Media-Persia, in one night with only one death, of the son of Nebuchadnezzar.
A Russian monk famously wrote after Constantinople fell in 1453, "Constantinople was the second Rome, Russia shall be the third Rome, and there shall be no fourth!"
@@dimieneyitemi1721 no they didnt a roman couldnt just join carthage you were born into your place in life its not the 21st century they only got a choice when a civil war was going on or when the barbarians camw
@@thewildcardperson yes they could do lmao people emigrated around all the time in the ancient world by your logic rome itself never could’ve lasted so long if your were “born into your place”
There's a channel called "Voices of the Past" with a video about each empire's attempts to directly contact the other for a thousand years, which includes first hand accounts, and it's fascinating. Highly recommend.
@@Dark-Mustang I know but it's so fascinating that it's not enough. Not only voices of the past but Invicta and Kings and General also made content about the theme but as i said, it is so fascinating that is not enough. There is something magical when two great civilizations meet. Rome and China were like ying & yang.
@@xanshen9011 Sadly, we're like Rome in all the most tragic ways; we call ourselves a Republic to the bitter end, despite losing it generations ago in favor of a global hegemony that cares nothing for the American Nation; just as the Romans called all their holdings and clients their Imperium, their Authority, so too should NATO and every country with American military and industrial presence be considered the Imperium Americanum: we are far too large, and we have no culture or national soul to hold any of it together. The only merciful thing to do is to let it fall apart.
Well, American certainly are as delusional as the Romans of the late Empire. The differences that Americans are still buying large sucking down the benefits of American global plunder, they're just so delusional they think they've actually earned it. The coming collapse of the petrodollar will be to quite a bit of bitter re-examination by the average American.
@@DISTurbedwaffle918 one might also see the echoes of the divisions strewn by christianity in the late republic (once it was declared the official state religion), their refusal to compromise, their insistence of the infallibility of their beliefs, and their attempt to surpress or otherwise destroy anyone who disagreed with them in the rise of the ethnonationalist christians in modern America.
The Roman empire a was not worth saving it was a brutal stagnated military dictatorship live in Europe improved after the fall of the empire western civilization is far superior to the Roman empire you can not compare our civilization with an iron aga stagnated military dictatorship like the Roman empire
@@rrrr2203 If you look only at the worst Rome had to offer, then you should also step back and start looking at the worst we have to offer. Worst parts of our civilization today is downright inhuman.
@@Bidmartinlo the worst we have to offer we took directly from the The degenerate Greeks and Romans the Roman empire was totalitarian stagnated regime our civilization is the greatest civilization the world had ever seen. The Roman empire was not very impressive stagnated iron age dictatorship . The only problem of our civilization is degeneracy which we took from the Romans and the Greeks. Rome did not have anything good to offer
Probably the Finest clear and concise description of these events, The use of more recent scholarship, and the contrast to what had been "common" knowledge is very refreshing, I ever want to raise the qulity of my knowledge., and HTis Channel, serves me Very well
America is going through its Late Republic crisis. We haven't even gotten to 3rd century fuckery with foreign invasions and endless civil war. It could be SO much worse. The US military is still 100% unchallenged until China actually takes a shot.
There is a fairly recent translation of Priscus of Panium by John Given if he is a historian you want to read. It is a fragmentary work so it is not actually his history but quotes a inferences that are from the original work preserved in later writings.
I really like how you bring academia knowledge and tools used in examining sources from ages past to your videos, so more people can be exposed to how historians work. Ofc format of yt video still requires to simplify one thing or another, but this is all really reliable. Thanks!
I've heard at least one TH-camr describe Latin America as similar to the Late Roman Empire, and that makes a little more sense with this video. Good content
@@deanfirnatine7814 IMO Latin America's 476 happened with the Spanish-American War, but the collapse is muted by the geography that protects Latin American countries from each other.
@@ingold1470 what makes you consider the Spanish-America War the fall of Latin America? It's an interesting proposition and something I never considered.
@@poorman2457 I was equating the Spanish Empire to the Romans, and that war ended the Spanish Empire in the Americas, though like West Rome in the 470s it had already lost most of it before then.
Empire imposes heavy burdens on its subjects, not just those it conquers. When empire is on the rise, and wealth is plentiful, the burden of empire seems bearable. But as the returns of empire start to go into the negative as they inevitably will, the systems that sustain empire, start to break. I once read a comment that by the 4th and 5th centuries, Rome was a city of the super-wealthy, and the super-poor. The Roman tax system was not only unfair, there was zero consistency to it. There was no flat rate, or fixed % rates of tax. Taxes were pretty much extracted by threat, real or implied. The more productive you happened to be, the more likely the gov't would simply expropriate surpluses, if not more. The govt squeezes those at the bottom hardest, far more than the top. Rome in that time, had twice the military, with 1/2 the empire to sustain it, compared to the Pax Romana. The much wealthier Eastern Empire, with its trade-based economy, fares better as we know. Inflation, high taxes, corrupt\gov't legal system, wealth inequality, and ruinous military spending. Any of it sound familiar in this 'modern' age, of ours? It should.....
@@rrrr2203 Nah,internal problems were bigger reason,barbarians were strong for the whole existence. Also a lot of them worked with Romans at some point,but started to raid Rome,because it was weak or because Romans ignored treaties.
@@tefky7964 you are totally wrong . The Roman empire did not fall because of internal problems the strength of the Romans never changed. The number barbarians increased rapidly during the third and fourth centuries this is proven by archeology the Germanic barbarians of the first century never managed to create large and powerful confederations . During the fourth century the Germanic barbarians become more centralised in this period we can see power several powerful Germanic confederations the reason the Germanic barbarians attacked the Romans during the 5th century was because they were Pushed by the expanding Hunnic empire . During the fourth century And 5th centuries there was massive geopolitical shit north from the Rhine and Danube River . This geopolitical shift was brought By the Huns
@@rrrr2203 They were able to centralise, because they worked with Romans much more and learned from them. There were many people, who were partly barbarians and lived within the empire,Stilicho being probably one of the most well known. Yes,there was many quite powerful barbarian confederations,but a lot of these confederations were allies of Rome... until they weren´t. When talking about Stilicho,I guess that Alaric might be good example for this. He was ally and enemy of Rome multiple times and he wasn´t an exception. If Romans were united (and had better emperors. Having Honorius as the emperor in the worst time helped a lot) and didn´t have so many problems,although you deny them, they would be able to survive these attacks. Also many of these attacks might be prevented completely by that.
@@tefky7964 the Raman empire all ways had civil wars and the relationship between the Romans and the Barbarians confederation was always changing during the early fourth century the empire was even more divided yet the Barbarians were not a major problem . only in the fifth century they become a major problem . civil wars were normal part of the Roman political system
I sort of know how they felt in terms of "recruitment morale." I feel it right now in the U.S. than how it was 20yrs ago. It's not worth joining the military that has lost its way becoming more political than caring more about national defense. Not to mention the military industrial complex seeing soldiers as cannon fodder for fruitless wars that only serve to make war profiteers rich without a clear goal for victory.
Would you rather have real, full blown modern total warfare? This may sound cynical, but the kinds of wars the US has been engaged in over the last 30 years have kept the military sharp, kept military industry placated and technology in an upward trajectory. When you have a real war erupt, and so much time has passed that there are no real veterans left, it's like starting from scratch. You know...God forbid I've heard some of the stuff about politics being pushed on the military recently. It wasn't like that 8 yrs ago, but I cant speak for now. I remember the repeal of DADT during the Obama yrs, but it didn't really affect anything in my experience. I remember a big push on getting rid of anyone found guilty of domestic abuse, and constant briefings about "self harm" prevention, but it apparently happens a lot.
@histguy101 of course I wouldn't want full blown warfare, and yes I know these proxy wars have kept our intelligence sharp in terms of how warfare is conducted such as the recent trend of grenades via drones. Then how to counter it. I was merely talking about morale, and porpuse for the troops.
@@erniegutierrez2288 not true most of history people will not care if the government represents them and Their interests. Human are quite subservient. There is a reason why I almost all human history humans were ruled authoritarian governments the Roman empire did not fall because of an internal rebellions if fall because of barbarian invasions
I think the fundamental issue was taxation. In general being ruled by a German king rather than a Roman governor meant a big drop in your tax bill. So you do not see the regional Roman elites all that upset about the change in leadership. Of course we have the benefit of hindsight, and can see how much trade, travel and security were set to collapse with the fall of the Empire, making everyone worse off during the Dark Ages. But on a local level, if you're a landholder, your finances are much better once the imperial tax collectors are gone. The Byzantines solved this by creating court/military positions with large state salaries. The Byzantine elites from across the Empire were dependent on the centralized tax system for a large fraction, if not most of their income. The regional elites remained eager to maintain the Empire and it's taxation system. Whenever a region was gained or lost, it impacted the Imperial treasury, and thus the salaries.
I'd like to see a video about Roman contacts with India, including Romans who actually lived in India while trading and built a temple there, which was still around in the early 4th century C.E. There also appear to be some parallels between Hinduism and Neoplatonism.
@@gilgameschvonuruk4982 I think there's only that one video on the subject and then a few on Roman-Indian trade, and that's all. I'd like to see Maiorianus's take on it.
So between the living standard and the unfairness in the society, why they chosen the unfairness as the reason of wanting the fall of their own Empire? Didn't it clearly been state that the living standard of the Romans were a lot better than the living standard of the Germanic tribes? Sure, the Germanic tribal judicial system may be swift and equal. But the fact that they do not possessed the education that is as good as the Roman one or being capable of developing the infrastructures for public services that is as good and effective as the one used by the Romans clearly shown that the living standard is a lot lower.
People don't always have awareness of what their living standards depend on. They may have assumed that they would have the same standard of living under new management. As I understand, much of the decrease in living standards came from trade routes collapsing, and I wouldn't expect the average Roman to have a good understanding of how important these were for their standard of living.
Living standards in the late western Roman Empire were shit for majority of the people. Only the elites had good living standards. This channel covered a video on this. Citizens were even damaging infrastructure to use its materials to construct other necessities. Majorian had to pass laws to prevent this.
Many Romans were in favour of change, specially those who lived in regions where constant conflict and heavy taxation made life incredibly difficult. The best example for this would be the city of Melitene who struck a deal with the Caliphate in order to avoid a destructive battle for control over its territory and because the jizya tax was lower than the imperial tax.
In some cases christians also experienced more freedom under the caliphate than under constantinople as the caliphs were not invested in policing christian worship the way the emperor/patriarch were. of course it would not always be easy to remain christian in a muslim-dominated state, but in the early days many must have felt that the arabs offered a 'better deal' than the romans.
Another example of how important is to have an arm population, not only because of the thread of external foes but of how vulnerable and easy to tyrannise an un-arm people is.
Hi there! Great video as always. You mentioned in the video that Romans were not allowed to bear arms... It was kinda shocking for me. Could you make a video about the right to bear arms in the Roman Empire over the decades??
It's not shocking for me. If the Roman population was armed like the legions, then the problem of civil war and "bagaudae" revolts would have been far worse.
Oikophobia! There is an excellent book about this from Benedict Beckeld, the term was created by the great Sir Roger Scruton. Wait, I recognize your voice! I was a regular follower of your space channel :) Both an appreciator of the future and the past, salvé
Romans, as you note, had a clear distinction between the civil and military even if officials might have a militarised uniform with belt and tunic. Roman civilians were not normally permitted to bear arms. This changed in the very late Empire where it was no longer possible for the state to ensure security in many areas. However, perhaps from pride (Theodosius II and his sister Pulcheria were pious but might have begun to see the Western colleague Valentinian as a bit of a burden) this derogation from state authority could never be conceded in certain places. Given where Priscus met this Graeco-Roman, it is quite possible that he had originally lived around one of the great cities of the Eastern Empire, perhaps mints and sometime Imperial headquarters Thessalonica or even the very seat of the eastern Emperor, Constantinople. While frontier dwellers manning border forts, limitanei would be expected to defend themselves, I doubt someone living around Constantinople would've been conceded any extraordinary right to arm themselves. Another possible point is that Merovingian and other kings ruling portions of the Western Empire would often grant exemption from taxes to landowners, who instead had to supply a portion of their estate workers and officials, even themselves for service in the royal army. This legalised self help might have seemed a better deal than heavy taxation that had no discernible benefit. A poorer man, a humiliore, not one of these honestiores, could be subject to the flogging or branding from which upper class men were exempt. Rome might have seemed a notably bad deal to a Western peasant or small landowner. These men seem to have provided support to the bagaudae who ejected Roman officials in Brittany and other parts of the West. Notably in Hispania the Sueve king Rechiar allied with bagaudae in taking Roman towns. A Germanic king wanting less tax would've seemed a better deal. Another example of Roman turned barbarian was the bishop Ulfilas who remembered his familial origins in Cappadocia, but devoted himself to making the Goths and other barbarians Christian, translating the bible and liturgical books from Greek to Gothic and repeatedly returning to Gothic territory and leading Gothic Christians over the border with the blessing of Constantius II. Like Constantius he was Homomean or Arian and may well himself, along with other Arian Goths, have seen something prophetic or Moses like in the fading Romans abandoning Arianism while the Goths, as a sort of New Israel, held to it stubbornly. Excuse my lengthy speculations, and thank you for your video.
Excellent comment as always Isaac, a joy to read through. Don't worry about the length, I suck everything up about Roman history, so there cannot be a too long text, especially about late Roman history :)
@@fusion9619 Arianism was a Christian heresy of the 4th century. Homoeans/Homoii/Acaceans were part of the Arians, the others parts were called Homoiousians and Anomoeans/Heterousians.
@@fusion9619 Depends on the group. Anomoeans/Heterousians believed that Christ is not God but different from the Fathers in his essence. God the Father is God and Jesus is just a creature not God. Homoeans/Homoii/Acaceans believed that Jesus is the same as the Father but did not elaborate on what they meant by being the same. Homoiousians had the same faith with the supporters of the 1st Ecumenical Council (Nicaea council) but used different terminology. Nicaean would say the Lord Jesus is of the same essence as the Father (homoousios), homoiousians would say they are of similar essence (homoiousios). In the end homoiousians either ended up as Homoeans or united with the supporters of the 1st Ecumenical Council.
What happened was, there was a major volcanic eruption and food/fuel failed for three years on top of which the already intense barbarian invasions took off rapidly as COLD CLIMATE conditions increased steadily over the following 200 years. The 'Roman' urban population died. They didn't have any descendants. I descended from the Northern Invaders, myself. We roamed all over the planet!
A great subject 👌 & introduced...empire's are always having (creative ,rising up ,stationary, decline)stages. majority of the empire's enemies are creating inside its wombs... video clearly labeled to lethal economic & social phenomena that participated in declined phase creation of West Roman empire collapsing
Can you do a video on Caracalla's edict that made every free man a citizen? I feel that also help the decline of rome. While yes it gave more tax revenue, it also made citizens not have to fight in the army to earn the citizenship. Since there already a citizen, there is not as much of a need to fight in the army.
So the common man had to rely on a police force to defend himself, and not able to bear arms. The court system could be so delayed and costly that justice was not achievable. It was understood that if there was a great reset, life would be better for the lower casts. This is some dangerous political stuff right here…
As an American I can’t help but see a lot of parallels with our current state of being. The populace growing complacent as the integrity of the state is waning, an unfair system that heavily favors the rich and keeping the poor, poor, lack of interest in joining the military, low national self-esteem, and ultimately a strong disconnect between the elites and the general population. America will likely fall from within and not from outside invaders, but it’s so interesting how early Americans were viewed as pioneers, dreamers, risk-takers, and now Americans are thought of as fat, lazy, ignorant, and sensitive. A complete degradation of our societal standards.
Just seeing the magnificence of their empire made me look up to see if they were happy and that brought me here… Reminds me of America too, people don’t care like they used to anymore. A lot of people want to lie down and be told what to do.
People have been making these comparisons to America for over a century, and they did the same for France, Germany, Great Britain/British Empire, Spanish empire, and on and on. Pundits were comparing the US to the fall of Rome even in the robust 1960s.
About 20 years ago I read a clasic book on the early middle ages. The points made were as follows. 1. Serfdom was establishef in the lste Roman Empire. The barbarians put and end to it. Serfdom did not sppear again till 800 AD to support heavy calvary. 2. In the Late Roman empire, there were press gangs for the army. In order to survive the press gangs, a indi individual would seak protection from a large land holder who would protect the individual for a price. During this time frame as well as in the Dark Ages an individual had to find protevtion from the powerful to survive
How does your first point incorporate the fact that half of roman army in the norh (if not more) consisted of those "barbarian" in the last decades of the empire? And I mean in commanding positions.
@@fusion9619 What I meant is that since the germanic leaders had taken hold of large part of the empire, it would be harsh to blame the Romans for situations others had caused.
@@nico210 well, serfdom wasn't the same as chattel slavery. It was basically a contract, and there were ways out. The fundamental reason people began to choose the arrangement was that they couldn't save enough money to be independent. The reason they couldn't save was because the Roman government debased their currency, which caused prices to rise. It's pretty much the same situation we have now, where houses are too expensive and the price of houses rises faster than wages - it's caused by governments being so large that they have to create extra money to pay for themselves instead of only taxing to pay for themselves. So, we might be about to start serfdom again - a book called "the road to serfdom" by Hayek explains this. Anyways, serfdom wasn't the barbarians' fault. The only thing I'd blame the barbarians for is not destroying the empire faster. It needed to end faster. It was a disaster for the human condition.
One of the more disturbing things about us having a better understanding of what befell the late Roman Empire, is that we understand from personal experience tax and legal systems that favors the wealthy. Therefore, we can pick up on such flaws more easily than Gibbon.
The conclusion of video is wrong First corruption in side the Roman empire all ways existed the poor living I hell like conditions was always something normal for the Roman state also slavery was declining in the late empire gladiatorial games were band in the western Roman empire . Also the creator of the video does not mention the fact that the conversation between Priscus and Greek ends By both acknowledging that the Roman empire is superior to barbarias because the empire has just laws which protected the subjects liberty. The Greek even weeps
What you are saying Is total nonsense the Roman empire did not fall because of it's unfair taxs system the Roman taxs system was aways unfair you are just repeating leftist nonsense
And Gibbon only had access to the written sources passed down through the centuries, so the only way he'd know the conditions of daily life in the late Empire is if someone wrote about it and the intellectuals of the time considered it worth copying. Still his description of its fall was a lot more fleshed out than the "Christianity bad" caricature of him & worth reading.
Excellent video, except for one problem. You talk about how the late Romans were not less virtuous, but then you talk about how officials were pocketing state revenues rather than paying the soldiers adequately, which had not been a problem in former times; how the government was debasing the currency, rather than keeping spending within revenues as in former times; how increasing corruption in the legal system alienated poor people and made them not want to fight for the Empire as they had in former times, when the legal system was at least somewhat fairer....Well, you get the picture. That, it seems to me, is what Gibbon meant when he wrote about the loss of virtue.
@@abraham2172 They really aren't, the US hasn't been around remotely enough to have as much of an impact like Rome. It's only lasted 2 years longer than the Monarchy and the "American Empire" was a totally different kind of empire from Rome. You'd actually find more parallels with how Carthage used its foreign military bases, trade outposts and puppet states than you would with Rome.
The aristocrats and upper classes were the only ones to really care about the empire as it meant their power and wealth was on the line. Life didn't change much for Roman commoners whether he was ruled by Majorian or Geiseric.
High burden of taxation, high inflation, people not motivated to work due to the devaluation of money, injustice against the working class.......sound familiar?
As someone from the US, I can relate with late Romans and I wouldn't shed any tears if every state today was allowed to go its separate ways or form pacts with other ones.
Could you also place links to videos that you reference in the description of your videos? You have a lot of videos to search through and they’re not in any kind of order.
So in other words we could say that what we refer to as "the fall of the Roman empire" wasn't much that it felt, but a people's revolution that ended the then-ongoing ruling class. However, the Romans and their society continued to exist, although under new political structures.
Having watched WhatIfAltHist videos on the cycles of society and the collapse of societies, coupled with the brilliant content in this video (as usual) I really draw parallels with the problems we're all facing in society today. We're very much in the decadent period of a society's lifespan and we're definitely over the curve and approaching the collapse part of the cycle. As with Western Rome the reasons for the societies creation is not meeting the requirements of the reality the people face. And very much so with the rising wealth inequality, corrupt officials (UK Tory party PPE contracts and I'm sure other incidents in your own respective countries) we face in the 21st century a collapse is coming. Our society, is not fit for the reality we are all living in.
I wouldnt be so pessimistic. There are also signs today that the societies you refered to are not collapsing. For example the unity between western countries when russia attacked Ukraine and tried to whipe it from the face of the earth.
@@abraham2172 This is my own interpretation of events unfolding. Yes there has been a coming together of NATO and EU states to support Ukraine, and good I'm glad. But there is also rampant, growing inequality, the wealth gaps are widening as an eve faster rate and for what? So some can line their pockets whilst the vast majority struggle day to day? That's utter bollocks and we should all deplore that kind of greed. Sure everyone wants to be comfortable but then there's taking the piss. In the UK the government right now is wanting and trying to push through legislation to restrict the right to strike. Basic hard earned rights that every worker should have. And because it's inconvenient to them and their profits? The society we have today isn't fit for the reality that we're living in imo. And until we put people & the environment before profits we're going to continue down this slippery slope.
It seems there were many civlisations that rise and fell, every one more distant from raw survival need than the one before. We now produce food for more than 10 billion people, and global construction industry would be able to build house for every family in less than a year. We are already post-scarcity society, we just didn't realise it. The leading edge siciology and psychology have understanding of our problems and even most of the solutions. It seems like we have all the knowledge and resources. We just can't do the last step and allocate it sensibly. Maybe we are the last civilisation that have to fail... Maybe the ones after us can do it, and we can conserve some knowledge for them... But I'm more of a Snufkin team, so who knows...
Whatifalthist is the new Spirit Science. Complete loon. He's not even lying or manipulating, he's just confused and rambling. Nobody can be wrong in every single point while pushing an agenda.
Quite. We are now in the 'decline' with currency devalued and open borders to any and all invaders while going to war in the Middle East/Danube areas exactly like back then. We are on our own now and all our cities are called 'hell holes' due to being dumping grounds for useless people parked there for political reasons.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 I'd say the useless people are more so from our own societies themselves not specifically limited to economic migrants but I agree they are part of the issue. I work in government, not going to specify but our current systems are completely broken, favour is given to people who like to sit on their arse all day and do jack shit. 1 example for my own country is the social housing system actively favours criminals and thugs rather than hard working families.
Great Cesar's Ghost if I don't see haunting chains of causal connection between this late Roman example and a certain present day empire's grave predicaments!
I would suspect that soldiers that were on the losing side of civil wars, or under generals that lost out in power struggles were also flight risks, in going bacaudae (or bagaudae) , or even joining invading peoples, especially if of foreign origin. For going into brigandage, believe Italy experienced a bout of that after Severus disbanded the Praetorian Guard. For defections of troops of foreign/Germanic origin , thinking of Goth troops joining Fritigern's Thervingian Goths (and other refugees of the lower Danube) in the 370s in the Balkans, or "treachery of the new barbarian recruits" of Theodosius around AD 380. It seems there was a bit of a paradox with the Roman military, in creating formations that in turn could become a threat to Imperial order, by way of support for usurpers, or attachment (and defection) to fellow foreign invaders (see defections to Fritigern), or attachment to foederati of dubious reliability (see Gainas), or as losers of civil conflicts (like Stilicho's troops going over to Alaric after his fall). I suspect the constant need to mobilize manpower, notably from foreign sources, led to mismanagement, poor discipline and unreliability of such formations in the Roman army - the downside of churn accompanied by lowering organizational cohesion.
Thiis sounds just like the United States and almost every way now, this is quite frightening. Even being in the military I noticed a lot of the commanders are very cowardly too.
@@gumbie007 In Late Rome the military was very bold in confronting the political class when it came to getting their share in the corruption, but much less willing to endure hardships like winter camping (which got Maurice killed) or marching with heavy armour (if Vegetius was correct).
@@ingold1470 Excellent analysis and if we were to apply it to today's US military- they're getting paid (without issues) regualry, and those that climb up the ranks (to Colonel, Admirals, or higher ranks) end up working for the "Military Industrial Complex" and then become part of the same corrupt system as you perfectly described when you state "share in the corruption". 🤔
Serious question here and please if anyone knows I would really appreciate an answer. TH-cam has marked this video as age -restricted. Can someone please explain what is considered as dangerous content on a video about Roman history?
I doubt the civilians that could bare arms were cowards ot bad fighters. They probably felt the risk was not worth the reward. Kind of like today if you fight ot sign up fpr the military. Your just a mercenary for hire fighting another's battle, not even sure who you are fighting or policing your enemy, nor do you care. It is just a paycheck, (or a bloodlust fullfillment for those who just like hunting humans), but it is not like a civilian or soldier fights for the rights to land, power, money, or conquest of another's land and everything else to take for there own like Vikings
This is why patriotism is absolutely necessary for a nation. Yes, the one extreme, nationalism, is a dangerous distortion. But the lack of any connection to your society is dangerous as well. The first is dangerous for other societies and the latter is dangerous for ur own society.
Early Romans: Our empire is the best nation in the world! Middle Romans: We need to make sure our empire is still the best nation in the world in these hard times! Late Romans: You know what? Our empire fucking sucks! We are well past the point of no return and there is no point saving it now.
ya the normal folk got autonomy and lower taxes as a result of the fall of the empire, they lost access to a very large trade network but I imagine they thought it was worth it
In the Collapse of Complex Societies it is stated that civilizations fall when the people no longer see the point in continuing as one people.
i see little point in the untied states
Who will benefit? Global capitalists of course. The division of nations by immigration, feminism and butique sexualities help to subjugate the populace into total submission by the rich 1%. The cherry on the top is that both the mainstream left and right on their own help to bring this about. They are both the useful idiots of the global financier capitalist class.
@@kitkat47chrysalis95 Agreed.
@@kitkat47chrysalis95 The racist religious "real" Americans are going to start a civil war again.
@@Miodrag.Vukomanovic for some reason your comment was removed by youtube, but i do agree, it is the age of war, unfortunately.
here is a sad song about how war destroys society
th-cam.com/video/zvdbDw5bXnQ/w-d-xo.html
science studies show that listening to sad songs cheers people up when they are depressed.
Under Theodoric Roman politicians noted that while the old offices still existed, they were only symbolic. Cassiodorus made a conscious effort to collect as many books as he could because he could see what was happening.
Funny... I feel compelled to collect books myself. And I have been. Theology, philosophy, history. Not fiction.
The senate always had just a symphonic rule during the empire under Theodoric the received a bit more power
@@rrrr2203 But the consuls were only symbolic.
@@stevejohnson3357 during the empire they were symbolic as well
@@floridaman318 lmao imagine hoarding a ton of deliberately historically inaccurate works just to fuck with whoever might find them after the apocalypse
The number of civil wars the Romans fought was insane. That's the main reason for the fall of the Western Roman Empire. So much pointless carnage. The fact that the empire lasted as long as it did was a miracle. And civil wars helped destroy the Byzantine Empire especially during the Palaiologos dynasty. They kept killing each other and made themselves easy targets.
Hmm it's been awhile since usa has had one of those things, maybe we ought to weaken ourselves a little just to give the others a chance.
@@kitkat47chrysalis95 LMAO yes we have, they just were not between 2 huge groups. Think about how every decade a city was burned down, turned into a waste land. Oh wait, you wouldn't know about that because the ones who cause it do not report on it and play it down.
You think MLK was a peaceful guy?
Explain why the Eastern Empire took so long to fall despite going through even more then. They were so much worse than the West, yet the West folded much quicker.
It would be hard to get volunteers to join the Legions only to fight other legions in civil wars or get sent off to some distant Provence to fight barbarians hordes while Vandals, Goths and Huns were looting and burning one's home town. Excellent take, Thanks Maiorianus.
If your army is fighting itself in the blind pursuit of power instead of fighting the enemy at the gates, that does not portend well for the longevity of your empire.
It would be hard to get a man to fight a war for the same people oppressing him with high taxes, a brutal justice system and the same people taking away his right to bear arms… all for a meagre salary and no pension.
@Primordial Pursuits History rhymes.
It will be pretty easy if you pay the a lot of money
@Primordial Pursuits it is not the same situation the reason why the Romans had recruitment problems was not because of the moral reservations of the average a Man it was because the Roman state did not offer enough money
As a late Westerner this is very relatable.
my friend it’s all so tiresome
Too late
Justr took the words right out of my mouth lol
@@reeyees50He might be talking about the modern west. But the wording’s vague, so idk.
Why is it relatable?
I know I said this on another video but:
Funfact: if you dont count later reconquests, Rome (the city) started with a Romulus and ended with a Romulus. Constantinople was started by a Constantine and ended with a Constantine
(Interestingly enough, Constantinople could have also been reclaimed by a Constantine had the Greeks succeeded in the Greco-Turkish War and fully carried out the Megali Idea.)
Edit: There's many more like this in the comment thread below (including Julius and Brutus)
Prince phillip's Father Duke Of Edinburgh Prince Andrew Was One Of Those Responsibles He Even Wrote A Book About It.
Not too late my Greek brothers
@@stevens1041 Constantinople will be a Christian city again.
@@stevens1041 lmao are you for real? Turkey would slaughter Greece if Greece went on the offensive
@@keeshans5768 Its a joke mate.
The New Roman Empire also developed its theme militia system...
The Romans waited too long on militia development, presumably because they were afraid that military force beyond their control would become rebellious.
Tyrants and the corrupt are afraid of militias and their citizens bearing arms. The politicians that serve the will of the people aren't afraid of that.
to be fair rebellious military was one of the reasons they got rid of legions and went to companion armies
@@brandonlee934it didn't stop rebellions though it just contained them
The Senate was completely fine with Odoacer. As long as they didn't have to endure the horrors of having an Easterner (like Anthemius or Nepos), and - more importantly - they were treated with respect, they didn't care who was in charge.
An excellent book on the subject is "Patricians and Emperors". Hughes does a good job of navigating the era by analyzing every little contradiction in the sources.
Usual roman, and great empires in general, dynamics! Anthemius was the last energetic emperor and the last hope, yet the senate and Anthemius were still two separate parties with their own interests and legitimate views about each other.
Julius Nepos was also one of the remnants of West Rome, yet it's not like he would've been appreciated had he had the chance to reconquer Italy.
Nepos abused the people? You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone
Of course the s*nate would be okay with a g*rm.
The late Roman Senate became increasingly corrupt
Who cares what the senate thought. It had been defunct for 300 years or more.
When Odoacer became King: He was in charge.
And he himself counted himself as a Germanic King. Accept it. Your narrative, is pop history: an opinion of the moment that will pass.
This is a great lesson that should not be forgotten.
As an Eastern European this hits home.
Degeneracy,decedance,weakness and most of all amorality has taken the best over us.If a country invades mine in the future i couldnt care less dying for the majority here.
Putin
*heavy breathing
ty M - I never considered how some Romans would prefer to see their own empire collapse - excellent content as per usual
Most people under an empire would rather see it collapse bc most of those people are poor ass peasants who are beinf exploited. Those who want to prevent collapse are always the ruling elite/military. Everyone else is gonna get fucked one way or another so what's the difference? If you can distract the masses you keep people docile but once the central government starts making big mistakes or stops preventing disaster you might as well jump ship.
Yes history 🙏🏻 is great 👍🏻
By 450 AD, there were really no more baths, no more arenas with entertainment, very much fewer people as crops failed and people in all 'civilized' places are unable to do the basic survival skills activities and so the former Roman Empire was overrun by barbarians who knew how to hunt, fight, cook on open fires, who didn't care if they had uncomfortable places to live and who were utterly indifferent to civilization just like we see in all our major cities today.
So we can speculate that people were not allowed to take up arms because authorities were worried that in many places they would rebel. That is, assuming that higher, for example provincial authorities knew of widespread injustice. Or the lower authorities knew and opposed the idea whenever it came about. And I suspect this might had been on the agenda at some point, for instance: after the Crisis Of The 3rd Century. That is truly fascinating idea. Let us not forget that somewhere in the early 3rd century there was that reform/imperial edict that made everyone a citizen and consequently, Roman aristocrats were gradually removed from the army's command core. Emperor's no longer recruited from among the Roman aristocracy for the most part. Rome's Praetorian Guard ceased to exist after like.. battle of Mulvian bridge? Or almost a century later, after Frigidus? Anyway, that factor also counted in. Native Romans had less and less control. Christian Emperors from other provinces of Rome; that is from outside Italy, disliked Roman aristocracy and this is why they favored Christianity so much- to rival Roman faith. I'm bringing that out in here because I don't think it came about in any of the videos... That detest toward Roman senatorial aristocracy might have also been a reason why more people gradually favored Christianity and Christian emperors more and more.. Until at last it didn't matter because it didn't lessen the frequency of civil war, injustice and heavy taxation.
But that was true in the early empire as well
Corruption was extremely high during all Roman Empire. Cicero became famous by denouncing governors who pillaged the conquered provinces.
Difference was that latifundia (large properties cultivated by slaves or serves) where much less extended during Republic and early Empire, leaving more men able and willing to take arms against invaders. but latifundia was much more profitable for high society, who had the connection to extend it by usurious loans to small exploitations, near monopoly of trade, cheaper man labour, and also bribing the judges to illegaly acquire land.
Cicero ended up leaning into the same corruption and never forget that his choice to legitimize Octavian helped carve the path to the Principate.
Personally, I think that they are enormous parallels between the fall of Western Roman Empire and the disolution of the USSR. Neither of them really fall, the reality is that this states started to slowly dissintegrate until they didn't have any sense to exist so they were replace for another type of organitsation.
Hey at least the romans became a gigachad in the amount of time they had as a empire from even backing up to a kingdom.
Just so, it is said of the 4th gentile empire with regard to Israel (in the book of their prophet Daniel) that it will be comprised of 5 stages: *unified Roman Empire *east-west balance of power *one world gov't *10 kingdom world gov't *the Antichrist's world rule. If Russia is Rosh (ezekiel 38:3, "chief prince": rosh), then when she invades Israel acc to the prophecy, she with the entire east will be demolished, leaving a one world gov't. Babylon fell the same way to Media-Persia, in one night with only one death, of the son of Nebuchadnezzar.
A Russian monk famously wrote after Constantinople fell in 1453, "Constantinople was the second Rome, Russia shall be the third Rome, and there shall be no fourth!"
In 1204 Kievan Rus princes reacted to the Fourth Crusade by blaming Byzantium for provoking the Latins
@@Blaqjaqshellaq Russia wishes they could be in the same sentence as Rome. What a joke.
Another point is that the Romans in the earlier period did not have a choice, those at the fall did have a choice
What do you mean?
@@gilgameschvonuruk4982 where would early romans go there were no other empires when rome started when it fell tho they had a dozen options to choose
@@thewildcardperson that makes no sense they had Greek city states Carthage all the other city states that inhabited Italy they did have a choice
@@dimieneyitemi1721 no they didnt a roman couldnt just join carthage you were born into your place in life its not the 21st century they only got a choice when a civil war was going on or when the barbarians camw
@@thewildcardperson yes they could do lmao people emigrated around all the time in the ancient world by your logic rome itself never could’ve lasted so long if your were “born into your place”
Always love some Majorian content.
You could talk about the Romans' contacts with the Chinese dynasties. It's a topic that fascinates me a lot but doesn't get enough attention.
This is a channel about the late Roman Empire…
There's a channel called "Voices of the Past" with a video about each empire's attempts to directly contact the other for a thousand years, which includes first hand accounts, and it's fascinating. Highly recommend.
@@Dark-Mustang Yep!! Voices of the past has covered it so well!
@@Dark-Mustang I know but it's so fascinating that it's not enough. Not only voices of the past but Invicta and Kings and General also made content about the theme but as i said, it is so fascinating that is not enough. There is something magical when two great civilizations meet. Rome and China were like ying & yang.
It doesn't get enough attention because they had very little. Any kind of contact was largely peripheral except for minor embassies.
Nothing better than starting my day with Maiorianus
As a citizen of the Late American Empire, I can sympathize.
More like the Late American Republic (I hope)
@@xanshen9011
Sadly, we're like Rome in all the most tragic ways; we call ourselves a Republic to the bitter end, despite losing it generations ago in favor of a global hegemony that cares nothing for the American Nation; just as the Romans called all their holdings and clients their Imperium, their Authority, so too should NATO and every country with American military and industrial presence be considered the Imperium Americanum: we are far too large, and we have no culture or national soul to hold any of it together.
The only merciful thing to do is to let it fall apart.
Well, American certainly are as delusional as the Romans of the late Empire. The differences that Americans are still buying large sucking down the benefits of American global plunder, they're just so delusional they think they've actually earned it. The coming collapse of the petrodollar will be to quite a bit of bitter re-examination by the average American.
@@xanshen9011 the Republic died a long time ago.
@@DISTurbedwaffle918 one might also see the echoes of the divisions strewn by christianity in the late republic (once it was declared the official state religion), their refusal to compromise, their insistence of the infallibility of their beliefs, and their attempt to surpress or otherwise destroy anyone who disagreed with them in the rise of the ethnonationalist christians in modern America.
Quite honestly how I feel about modern society to be honest, but if Rome is any indication it's worth trying to save.
The Roman empire a was not worth saving it was a brutal stagnated military dictatorship live in Europe improved after the fall of the empire western civilization is far superior to the Roman empire you can not compare our civilization with an iron aga stagnated military dictatorship like the Roman empire
@@rrrr2203 If you look only at the worst Rome had to offer, then you should also step back and start looking at the worst we have to offer. Worst parts of our civilization today is downright inhuman.
@@Bidmartinlo the worst we have to offer we took directly from the The degenerate Greeks and Romans the Roman empire was totalitarian stagnated regime our civilization is the greatest civilization the world had ever seen. The Roman empire was not very impressive stagnated iron age dictatorship . The only problem of our civilization is degeneracy which we took from the Romans and the Greeks. Rome did not have anything good to offer
@@rrrr2203 You know there were civilizations BEFORE Rome and Greece, right? 🤣
Hard disagree. Only good thing we have going today is the ability to live long and advanced technology which is material anyway. Nothing else really
Probably the Finest clear and concise description of these events, The use of more recent scholarship, and the contrast to what had been "common" knowledge is very refreshing, I ever want to raise the qulity of my knowledge., and HTis Channel, serves me Very well
That sounds like what is happening in America now
America is going through its Late Republic crisis. We haven't even gotten to 3rd century fuckery with foreign invasions and endless civil war. It could be SO much worse. The US military is still 100% unchallenged until China actually takes a shot.
History does not repeat but it certainly does rhyme, one could take parallels with this on today even
What a suggestive tittle for this times !
Exactly.
There is a fairly recent translation of Priscus of Panium by John Given if he is a historian you want to read. It is a fragmentary work so it is not actually his history but quotes a inferences that are from the original work preserved in later writings.
I really like how you bring academia knowledge and tools used in examining sources from ages past to your videos, so more people can be exposed to how historians work. Ofc format of yt video still requires to simplify one thing or another, but this is all really reliable. Thanks!
Corruption one of mankind's greatest enemies that we can never beat.
not true there are inner engineering technologies that the west hasn't explored yet.The moment inner fulfillment is reached corruption will fall
Wow. This realized like a dozen suspicions I had. Thanks!
5:12 Like waiting for the police to arrive to make a few notes and go back to the station for donut Lunch.
I've heard at least one TH-camr describe Latin America as similar to the Late Roman Empire, and that makes a little more sense with this video. Good content
Seeing current day Latin America I can see that, the only question is will Venezuela, Brazil or Argentina be the first to collapse into chaos.
@@deanfirnatine7814 IMO Latin America's 476 happened with the Spanish-American War, but the collapse is muted by the geography that protects Latin American countries from each other.
@@ingold1470 what makes you consider the Spanish-America War the fall of Latin America?
It's an interesting proposition and something I never considered.
@@poorman2457 I was equating the Spanish Empire to the Romans, and that war ended the Spanish Empire in the Americas, though like West Rome in the 470s it had already lost most of it before then.
Happy to see you getting sponsorships!
Empire imposes heavy burdens on its subjects, not just those it conquers. When empire is on the rise, and wealth is plentiful, the burden of empire seems bearable. But as the returns of empire start to go into the negative as they inevitably will, the systems that sustain empire, start to break. I once read a comment that by the 4th and 5th centuries, Rome was a city of the super-wealthy, and the super-poor. The Roman tax system was not only unfair, there was zero consistency to it. There was no flat rate, or fixed % rates of tax. Taxes were pretty much extracted by threat, real or implied. The more productive you happened to be, the more likely the gov't would simply expropriate surpluses, if not more. The govt squeezes those at the bottom hardest, far more than the top. Rome in that time, had twice the military, with 1/2 the empire to sustain it, compared to the Pax Romana. The much wealthier Eastern Empire, with its trade-based economy, fares better as we know.
Inflation, high taxes, corrupt\gov't legal system, wealth inequality, and ruinous military spending. Any of it sound familiar in this 'modern' age, of ours? It should.....
The Roman empire fall not because of internal problems but because of the increasing strength of the Barbarians
@@rrrr2203 Nah,internal problems were bigger reason,barbarians were strong for the whole existence. Also a lot of them worked with Romans at some point,but started to raid Rome,because it was weak or because Romans ignored treaties.
@@tefky7964 you are totally wrong . The Roman empire did not fall because of internal problems the strength of the Romans never changed. The number barbarians increased rapidly during the third and fourth centuries this is proven by archeology the Germanic barbarians of the first century never managed to create large and powerful confederations . During the fourth century the Germanic barbarians become more centralised in this period we can see power several powerful Germanic confederations the reason the Germanic barbarians attacked the Romans during the 5th century was because they were Pushed by the expanding Hunnic empire . During the fourth century And 5th centuries there was massive geopolitical shit north from the Rhine and Danube River . This geopolitical shift was brought By the Huns
@@rrrr2203 They were able to centralise, because they worked with Romans much more and learned from them. There were many people, who were partly barbarians and lived within the empire,Stilicho being probably one of the most well known. Yes,there was many quite powerful barbarian confederations,but a lot of these confederations were allies of Rome... until they weren´t. When talking about Stilicho,I guess that Alaric might be good example for this. He was ally and enemy of Rome multiple times and he wasn´t an exception. If Romans were united (and had better emperors. Having Honorius as the emperor in the worst time helped a lot) and didn´t have so many problems,although you deny them, they would be able to survive these attacks. Also many of these attacks might be prevented completely by that.
@@tefky7964 the Raman empire all ways had civil wars and the relationship between the Romans and the Barbarians confederation was always changing during the early fourth century the empire was even more divided yet the Barbarians were not a major problem . only in the fifth century they become a major problem . civil wars were normal part of the Roman political system
I sort of know how they felt in terms of "recruitment morale." I feel it right now in the U.S. than how it was 20yrs ago. It's not worth joining the military that has lost its way becoming more political than caring more about national defense. Not to mention the military industrial complex seeing soldiers as cannon fodder for fruitless wars that only serve to make war profiteers rich without a clear goal for victory.
Would you rather have real, full blown modern total warfare?
This may sound cynical, but the kinds of wars the US has been engaged in over the last 30 years have kept the military sharp, kept military industry placated and technology in an upward trajectory. When you have a real war erupt, and so much time has passed that there are no real veterans left, it's like starting from scratch. You know...God forbid
I've heard some of the stuff about politics being pushed on the military recently. It wasn't like that 8 yrs ago, but I cant speak for now. I remember the repeal of DADT during the Obama yrs, but it didn't really affect anything in my experience. I remember a big push on getting rid of anyone found guilty of domestic abuse, and constant briefings about "self harm" prevention, but it apparently happens a lot.
@histguy101 of course I wouldn't want full blown warfare, and yes I know these proxy wars have kept our intelligence sharp in terms of how warfare is conducted such as the recent trend of grenades via drones. Then how to counter it. I was merely talking about morale, and porpuse for the troops.
The majority of the people just werent invested in Rome welcoming the invaders! We can learn so much from Late Rome. Great video "Like"
I wonder how modern Americans and Europeans see this.
No we can not learn anything from the late empire our civilization is too different
@@rrrr2203 people are people. If they see a government not representing them r their interests.... they will react. History is full of examples.
@@erniegutierrez2288 not true most of history people will not care if the government represents them and Their interests. Human are quite subservient. There is a reason why I almost all human history humans were ruled authoritarian governments the Roman empire did not fall because of an internal rebellions if fall because of barbarian invasions
@@rrrr2203 Most of human history we lived in egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands.
I think the fundamental issue was taxation. In general being ruled by a German king rather than a Roman governor meant a big drop in your tax bill. So you do not see the regional Roman elites all that upset about the change in leadership.
Of course we have the benefit of hindsight, and can see how much trade, travel and security were set to collapse with the fall of the Empire, making everyone worse off during the Dark Ages. But on a local level, if you're a landholder, your finances are much better once the imperial tax collectors are gone.
The Byzantines solved this by creating court/military positions with large state salaries. The Byzantine elites from across the Empire were dependent on the centralized tax system for a large fraction, if not most of their income. The regional elites remained eager to maintain the Empire and it's taxation system. Whenever a region was gained or lost, it impacted the Imperial treasury, and thus the salaries.
I'd like to see a video about Roman contacts with India, including Romans who actually lived in India while trading and built a temple there, which was still around in the early 4th century C.E. There also appear to be some parallels between Hinduism and Neoplatonism.
Odd compass made a video on this issue
@@gilgameschvonuruk4982 I think there's only that one video on the subject and then a few on Roman-Indian trade, and that's all. I'd like to see Maiorianus's take on it.
You misspelled A.D.
@@keerf255 How is life in the Middle Ages?
@@julianhermanubis6800 Perfect. Common era of what, by the way?
So between the living standard and the unfairness in the society, why they chosen the unfairness as the reason of wanting the fall of their own Empire? Didn't it clearly been state that the living standard of the Romans were a lot better than the living standard of the Germanic tribes? Sure, the Germanic tribal judicial system may be swift and equal. But the fact that they do not possessed the education that is as good as the Roman one or being capable of developing the infrastructures for public services that is as good and effective as the one used by the Romans clearly shown that the living standard is a lot lower.
People don't always have awareness of what their living standards depend on. They may have assumed that they would have the same standard of living under new management. As I understand, much of the decrease in living standards came from trade routes collapsing, and I wouldn't expect the average Roman to have a good understanding of how important these were for their standard of living.
Living standards in the late western Roman Empire were shit for majority of the people. Only the elites had good living standards. This channel covered a video on this. Citizens were even damaging infrastructure to use its materials to construct other necessities. Majorian had to pass laws to prevent this.
Thank you. That was a fascinating thought provoking video.
Many Romans were in favour of change, specially those who lived in regions where constant conflict and heavy taxation made life incredibly difficult. The best example for this would be the city of Melitene who struck a deal with the Caliphate in order to avoid a destructive battle for control over its territory and because the jizya tax was lower than the imperial tax.
Dumb sheep are always fooled by progress. Progress does not mean better for our people, it means progress for Elites agenda.
In some cases christians also experienced more freedom under the caliphate than under constantinople as the caliphs were not invested in policing christian worship the way the emperor/patriarch were. of course it would not always be easy to remain christian in a muslim-dominated state, but in the early days many must have felt that the arabs offered a 'better deal' than the romans.
@@denniscarr9234 It's all about taxes. There is nothing sure in this world but death and taxes.
Another example of how important is to have an arm population, not only because of the thread of external foes but of how vulnerable and easy to tyrannise an un-arm people is.
Hi there! Great video as always. You mentioned in the video that Romans were not allowed to bear arms... It was kinda shocking for me.
Could you make a video about the right to bear arms in the Roman Empire over the decades??
Civilians living in the city were not allowed to bear arms. Julius Caesar proved that knives were still allowed.
It's not shocking for me. If the Roman population was armed like the legions, then the problem of civil war and "bagaudae" revolts would have been far worse.
Oikophobia! There is an excellent book about this from Benedict Beckeld, the term was created by the great Sir Roger Scruton.
Wait, I recognize your voice! I was a regular follower of your space channel :)
Both an appreciator of the future and the past, salvé
It's scary that so many problems of the late Roman Empire start to occure in out times.
Romans, as you note, had a clear distinction between the civil and military even if officials might have a militarised uniform with belt and tunic. Roman civilians were not normally permitted to bear arms. This changed in the very late Empire where it was no longer possible for the state to ensure security in many areas. However, perhaps from pride (Theodosius II and his sister Pulcheria were pious but might have begun to see the Western colleague Valentinian as a bit of a burden) this derogation from state authority could never be conceded in certain places. Given where Priscus met this Graeco-Roman, it is quite possible that he had originally lived around one of the great cities of the Eastern Empire, perhaps mints and sometime Imperial headquarters Thessalonica or even the very seat of the eastern Emperor, Constantinople. While frontier dwellers manning border forts, limitanei would be expected to defend themselves, I doubt someone living around Constantinople would've been conceded any extraordinary right to arm themselves.
Another possible point is that Merovingian and other kings ruling portions of the Western Empire would often grant exemption from taxes to landowners, who instead had to supply a portion of their estate workers and officials, even themselves for service in the royal army. This legalised self help might have seemed a better deal than heavy taxation that had no discernible benefit. A poorer man, a humiliore, not one of these honestiores, could be subject to the flogging or branding from which upper class men were exempt. Rome might have seemed a notably bad deal to a Western peasant or small landowner. These men seem to have provided support to the bagaudae who ejected Roman officials in Brittany and other parts of the West. Notably in Hispania the Sueve king Rechiar allied with bagaudae in taking Roman towns. A Germanic king wanting less tax would've seemed a better deal.
Another example of Roman turned barbarian was the bishop Ulfilas who remembered his familial origins in Cappadocia, but devoted himself to making the Goths and other barbarians Christian, translating the bible and liturgical books from Greek to Gothic and repeatedly returning to Gothic territory and leading Gothic Christians over the border with the blessing of Constantius II. Like Constantius he was Homomean or Arian and may well himself, along with other Arian Goths, have seen something prophetic or Moses like in the fading Romans abandoning Arianism while the Goths, as a sort of New Israel, held to it stubbornly.
Excuse my lengthy speculations, and thank you for your video.
Excellent comment as always Isaac, a joy to read through. Don't worry about the length, I suck everything up about Roman history, so there cannot be a too long text, especially about late Roman history :)
What's Homomean or Arian? I tried googling it and got a surprising little message that there literally nothing on the internet matching my query.
@@fusion9619 Arianism was a Christian heresy of the 4th century. Homoeans/Homoii/Acaceans were part of the Arians, the others parts were called Homoiousians and Anomoeans/Heterousians.
@@panagiotismakris8276 oh ok, thanks. What did they believe?
@@fusion9619 Depends on the group.
Anomoeans/Heterousians believed that Christ is not God but different from the Fathers in his essence. God the Father is God and Jesus is just a creature not God.
Homoeans/Homoii/Acaceans believed that Jesus is the same as the Father but did not elaborate on what they meant by being the same.
Homoiousians had the same faith with the supporters of the 1st Ecumenical Council (Nicaea council) but used different terminology. Nicaean would say the Lord Jesus is of the same essence as the Father (homoousios), homoiousians would say they are of similar essence (homoiousios). In the end homoiousians either ended up as Homoeans or united with the supporters of the 1st Ecumenical Council.
Go to curiositystream.com/MAIORIANUS and use code MAIORIANUS to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
What happened was, there was a major volcanic eruption and food/fuel failed for three years on top of which the already intense barbarian invasions took off rapidly as COLD CLIMATE conditions increased steadily over the following 200 years. The 'Roman' urban population died. They didn't have any descendants. I descended from the Northern Invaders, myself. We roamed all over the planet!
A great subject 👌 & introduced...empire's are always having (creative ,rising up ,stationary, decline)stages. majority of the empire's enemies are creating inside its wombs... video clearly labeled to lethal economic & social phenomena that participated in declined phase creation of West Roman empire collapsing
Can you do a video on Caracalla's edict that made every free man a citizen? I feel that also help the decline of rome. While yes it gave more tax revenue, it also made citizens not have to fight in the army to earn the citizenship. Since there already a citizen, there is not as much of a need to fight in the army.
Loved your space channel but I have to say this is even better! Well done!
This was very insightful!
So the common man had to rely on a police force to defend himself, and not able to bear arms.
The court system could be so delayed and costly that justice was not achievable.
It was understood that if there was a great reset, life would be better for the lower casts.
This is some dangerous political stuff right here…
As a modern Greek I relate to what that distant parent said concerning living among the Goths rather than in the empire...💸
As an American I can’t help but see a lot of parallels with our current state of being. The populace growing complacent as the integrity of the state is waning, an unfair system that heavily favors the rich and keeping the poor, poor, lack of interest in joining the military, low national self-esteem, and ultimately a strong disconnect between the elites and the general population.
America will likely fall from within and not from outside invaders, but it’s so interesting how early Americans were viewed as pioneers, dreamers, risk-takers, and now Americans are thought of as fat, lazy, ignorant, and sensitive. A complete degradation of our societal standards.
Just seeing the magnificence of their empire made me look up to see if they were happy and that brought me here… Reminds me of America too, people don’t care like they used to anymore. A lot of people want to lie down and be told what to do.
People have been making these comparisons to America for over a century, and they did the same for France, Germany, Great Britain/British Empire, Spanish empire, and on and on.
Pundits were comparing the US to the fall of Rome even in the robust 1960s.
About 20 years ago I read a clasic book on the early middle ages. The points made were as follows.
1. Serfdom was establishef in the lste Roman Empire. The barbarians put and end to it. Serfdom did not sppear again till 800 AD to support heavy calvary.
2. In the Late Roman empire, there were press gangs for the army. In order to survive the press gangs, a indi individual would seak protection from a large land holder who would protect the individual for a price.
During this time frame as well as in the Dark Ages an individual had to find protevtion from the powerful to survive
How does your first point incorporate the fact that half of roman army in the norh (if not more) consisted of those "barbarian" in the last decades of the empire? And I mean in commanding positions.
@@nico210 pay? Most people will do anything if the price is right.
@@fusion9619 What I meant is that since the germanic leaders had taken hold of large part of the empire, it would be harsh to blame the Romans for situations others had caused.
@@nico210 well, serfdom wasn't the same as chattel slavery. It was basically a contract, and there were ways out. The fundamental reason people began to choose the arrangement was that they couldn't save enough money to be independent. The reason they couldn't save was because the Roman government debased their currency, which caused prices to rise. It's pretty much the same situation we have now, where houses are too expensive and the price of houses rises faster than wages - it's caused by governments being so large that they have to create extra money to pay for themselves instead of only taxing to pay for themselves. So, we might be about to start serfdom again - a book called "the road to serfdom" by Hayek explains this. Anyways, serfdom wasn't the barbarians' fault. The only thing I'd blame the barbarians for is not destroying the empire faster. It needed to end faster. It was a disaster for the human condition.
@@fusion9619The Romans didn't have serfdom. It's just not the same thing, and for the average person, nothing much changed with the fall of the west.
There is a time to let go, as there let be some thorn in a bed of roses.
One of the more disturbing things about us having a better understanding of what befell the late Roman Empire, is that we understand from personal experience tax and legal systems that favors the wealthy. Therefore, we can pick up on such flaws more easily than Gibbon.
Also, Gibbon was wealthy. He could never see it from a poor common working man's perspective.
@@TEverettReynolds why should he only great and powerful individuals changed history
The conclusion of video is wrong First corruption in side the Roman empire all ways existed the poor living I hell like conditions was always something normal for the Roman state also slavery was declining in the late empire gladiatorial games were band in the western Roman empire . Also the creator of the video does not mention the fact that the conversation between Priscus and Greek ends By both acknowledging that the Roman empire is superior to barbarias because the empire has just laws which protected the subjects liberty. The Greek even weeps
What you are saying Is total nonsense the Roman empire did not fall because of it's unfair taxs system the Roman taxs system was aways unfair you are just repeating leftist nonsense
And Gibbon only had access to the written sources passed down through the centuries, so the only way he'd know the conditions of daily life in the late Empire is if someone wrote about it and the intellectuals of the time considered it worth copying. Still his description of its fall was a lot more fleshed out than the "Christianity bad" caricature of him & worth reading.
Excellent video, except for one problem. You talk about how the late Romans were not less virtuous, but then you talk about how officials were pocketing state revenues rather than paying the soldiers adequately, which had not been a problem in former times; how the government was debasing the currency, rather than keeping spending within revenues as in former times; how increasing corruption in the legal system alienated poor people and made them not want to fight for the Empire as they had in former times, when the legal system was at least somewhat fairer....Well, you get the picture. That, it seems to me, is what Gibbon meant when he wrote about the loss of virtue.
Brave video! And thinking outside the box.
7:20 - The Documentary, "Rome the World's First Superpower."
Alexander the Great: _Hold my beer!_
China: What are you children squabbling about?
So many lessons you can draw for our present.
Fantastic video love this channel
Sabastian, you should do a comparison between the stages of the Roman Empire and the American Empire.
Are they similiar enough for such a video though? Is there even an "american Empire"?
@@abraham2172 They really aren't, the US hasn't been around remotely enough to have as much of an impact like Rome. It's only lasted 2 years longer than the Monarchy and the "American Empire" was a totally different kind of empire from Rome.
You'd actually find more parallels with how Carthage used its foreign military bases, trade outposts and puppet states than you would with Rome.
America is still the Republic, it has yet to become the Empire.
The Greek's complaints sound very familiar...
It is happening again to Europe and the US.
The aristocrats and upper classes were the only ones to really care about the empire as it meant their power and wealth was on the line.
Life didn't change much for Roman commoners whether he was ruled by Majorian or Geiseric.
History never repeats itself but it does often rhyme.
*"Can i put my ballz in yo jawz"*
Roman legionaries to the Carthaginian citizens
Only nerds who correct your grammar say this, “repeat and rhyme” are synonymous in this context
Another good example (like the many others on your channel) of a well-made video!
I can see so many similarities between the Fall of Rome and what’s going on with the USA right now. 😢
Funny, it seems there are those who feel the same way today.
High burden of taxation, high inflation, people not motivated to work due to the devaluation of money, injustice against the working class.......sound familiar?
As someone from the US, I can relate with late Romans and I wouldn't shed any tears if every state today was allowed to go its separate ways or form pacts with other ones.
We are headed down the exact same path as a nation.
True the Dixie South Must Secede
@@ganargxkraken 🤡
@@Monketeer-01"its ok if america breaks apart"
"oh no not like that"
🐵
@@ganargxkraken wtf are you talking about
Chaos is a ladder.
Could you also place links to videos that you reference in the description of your videos? You have a lot of videos to search through and they’re not in any kind of order.
So in other words we could say that what we refer to as "the fall of the Roman empire" wasn't much that it felt, but a people's revolution that ended the then-ongoing ruling class. However, the Romans and their society continued to exist, although under new political structures.
Well, they got a new ruling class of outsiders, who hardened by war, was a little fire and rape happy..
Having watched WhatIfAltHist videos on the cycles of society and the collapse of societies, coupled with the brilliant content in this video (as usual) I really draw parallels with the problems we're all facing in society today.
We're very much in the decadent period of a society's lifespan and we're definitely over the curve and approaching the collapse part of the cycle.
As with Western Rome the reasons for the societies creation is not meeting the requirements of the reality the people face. And very much so with the rising wealth inequality, corrupt officials (UK Tory party PPE contracts and I'm sure other incidents in your own respective countries) we face in the 21st century a collapse is coming. Our society, is not fit for the reality we are all living in.
I wouldnt be so pessimistic. There are also signs today that the societies you refered to are not collapsing. For example the unity between western countries when russia attacked Ukraine and tried to whipe it from the face of the earth.
WhatIfAltHist Would even tell u that your toilet will collapse in your spaghetti lunch ... Take It with a of salt
@@abraham2172 This is my own interpretation of events unfolding. Yes there has been a coming together of NATO and EU states to support Ukraine, and good I'm glad.
But there is also rampant, growing inequality, the wealth gaps are widening as an eve faster rate and for what? So some can line their pockets whilst the vast majority struggle day to day?
That's utter bollocks and we should all deplore that kind of greed. Sure everyone wants to be comfortable but then there's taking the piss.
In the UK the government right now is wanting and trying to push through legislation to restrict the right to strike. Basic hard earned rights that every worker should have. And because it's inconvenient to them and their profits?
The society we have today isn't fit for the reality that we're living in imo. And until we put people & the environment before profits we're going to continue down this slippery slope.
It seems there were many civlisations that rise and fell, every one more distant from raw survival need than the one before. We now produce food for more than 10 billion people, and global construction industry would be able to build house for every family in less than a year. We are already post-scarcity society, we just didn't realise it. The leading edge siciology and psychology have understanding of our problems and even most of the solutions. It seems like we have all the knowledge and resources. We just can't do the last step and allocate it sensibly. Maybe we are the last civilisation that have to fail... Maybe the ones after us can do it, and we can conserve some knowledge for them... But I'm more of a Snufkin team, so who knows...
Whatifalthist is the new Spirit Science.
Complete loon. He's not even lying or manipulating, he's just confused and rambling.
Nobody can be wrong in every single point while pushing an agenda.
Modern society needs to take lessons from this. This is repeating itself
Quite. We are now in the 'decline' with currency devalued and open borders to any and all invaders while going to war in the Middle East/Danube areas exactly like back then. We are on our own now and all our cities are called 'hell holes' due to being dumping grounds for useless people parked there for political reasons.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 I'd say the useless people are more so from our own societies themselves not specifically limited to economic migrants but I agree they are part of the issue. I work in government, not going to specify but our current systems are completely broken, favour is given to people who like to sit on their arse all day and do jack shit. 1 example for my own country is the social housing system actively favours criminals and thugs rather than hard working families.
@@temptemp4174 100% true. 💣
It is rather interesting to know that the idea of Rome died well before the actual institution.
Great Cesar's Ghost if I don't see haunting chains of causal connection between this late Roman example and a certain present day empire's grave predicaments!
I would suspect that soldiers that were on the losing side of civil wars, or under generals that lost out in power struggles were also flight risks, in going bacaudae (or bagaudae) , or even joining invading peoples, especially if of foreign origin. For going into brigandage, believe Italy experienced a bout of that after Severus disbanded the Praetorian Guard. For defections of troops of foreign/Germanic origin , thinking of Goth troops joining Fritigern's Thervingian Goths (and other refugees of the lower Danube) in the 370s in the Balkans, or "treachery of the new barbarian recruits" of Theodosius around AD 380.
It seems there was a bit of a paradox with the Roman military, in creating formations that in turn could become a threat to Imperial order, by way of support for usurpers, or attachment (and defection) to fellow foreign invaders (see defections to Fritigern), or attachment to foederati of dubious reliability (see Gainas), or as losers of civil conflicts (like Stilicho's troops going over to Alaric after his fall). I suspect the constant need to mobilize manpower, notably from foreign sources, led to mismanagement, poor discipline and unreliability of such formations in the Roman army - the downside of churn accompanied by lowering organizational cohesion.
Great stuff!
Thiis sounds just like the United States and almost every way now, this is quite frightening.
Even being in the military I noticed a lot of the commanders are very cowardly too.
Exactly! Especially (cowardly) towards confronting the political class and all the corruption that is destroying our country from within…..🤔🤨🤦♂️😢
Been watching this trend since I became aware of society and politics in my teens--back in the5 70s.
@@gumbie007 In Late Rome the military was very bold in confronting the political class when it came to getting their share in the corruption, but much less willing to endure hardships like winter camping (which got Maurice killed) or marching with heavy armour (if Vegetius was correct).
@@ingold1470 Excellent analysis and if we were to apply it to today's US military- they're getting paid (without issues) regualry, and those that climb up the ranks (to Colonel, Admirals, or higher ranks) end up working for the "Military Industrial Complex" and then become part of the same corrupt system as you perfectly described when you state "share in the corruption". 🤔
One topic that hasn't been covered is the evolution of Europe after the fall of the Roman empire, how did the kingdom of Bulgaria and so on come up?
Serious question here and please if anyone knows I would really appreciate an answer. TH-cam has marked this video as age -restricted. Can someone please explain what is considered as dangerous content on a video about Roman history?
What mod are you using for the gameplay?
Pretty relateable
I doubt the civilians that could bare arms were cowards ot bad fighters. They probably felt the risk was not worth the reward. Kind of like today if you fight ot sign up fpr the military. Your just a mercenary for hire fighting another's battle, not even sure who you are fighting or policing your enemy, nor do you care. It is just a paycheck, (or a bloodlust fullfillment for those who just like hunting humans), but it is not like a civilian or soldier fights for the rights to land, power, money, or conquest of another's land and everything else to take for there own like Vikings
This is why patriotism is absolutely necessary for a nation. Yes, the one extreme, nationalism, is a dangerous distortion. But the lack of any connection to your society is dangerous as well. The first is dangerous for other societies and the latter is dangerous for ur own society.
Today, any patriotism in western countries is called nationalism and considered a dirty thing by many
Caesar: "Panem et circenses!"
Western Roman Empire: "Let's do away with pane."
Eastern Roman Empire: "Let's do away with circensi."
are we the late romans now?
Basically yes
Interesting video. I see some parallels to our present, regarding taxation, society and the like
Maybe the best of your videos.
Early Romans: Our empire is the best nation in the world!
Middle Romans: We need to make sure our empire is still the best nation in the world in these hard times!
Late Romans: You know what? Our empire fucking sucks! We are well past the point of no return and there is no point saving it now.
High taxes, severe punishments and no rights to bear arms… sounds familiar 🇨🇦
As a young American man I understand the Roman citizens sentiment
Dude that background beep sound is driving me crazy.
It is very relevant to America and Western Europe today.
it falls on deaf ears
Not really. I dont see many slaves or constant civil wars around..
why do the Scythians at 4:26 look like Mongolians or Chinese?
they must have come from the far east
Looks like an interesting Video but - age restricted! Why? Is there anywhere I can see it without sending my driving license to google?!
Nothing has changed. If you have money, you can buy influence. With influence you aquire power. And with power you are above the law.
Incredible analysis and as an American 🇺🇸 all I can say is that you can already see those same elements here in the U.S…..🤔🤨
Gonna say same thing.
ya the normal folk got autonomy and lower taxes as a result of the fall of the empire, they lost access to a very large trade network but I imagine they thought it was worth it