⚔ SPQR Shop, excellent hand-crafted Roman rings and other items: spqrshop.com/?sca_ref=4770010.FM16q4LJHr Enter the code "Maiorianus" to get a 10% discount on every purchase. The ideal present for any fan of Rome 😉!
Would be nice if you start uploading shorts again, just the long videos are fine but i liked the sorts alot (like a filler between the long video uploads)
Just a brief correction. The Antonine Emperors never had a "adoption system", it only happened because none of the Antonine Emperors until Marcus Aurelius actually had any eligible heirs. There was no system of adoption, it was more like just a lucky accident.
@@andrelegeant88 lot of people don't understand this. Scipio Africanus and Gaius Marius were both adopted in more established families. Octavian marrying into the Claudii really upped his prestige by a lot. Many families would marry into one another to maintain elite status or as a trade off (one side has money the other side has the better name). This was a super common thing and its really not until the 1st century BCE proscriptions and then the rise of provincial elite in the 1st and 2nd centuries that the italian nobility weren't able to just marry one another and stay on top.
@@geordiejones5618 Not Africanus but his step-grandson, Africanus Minor,who was bilogical son of Aemilius Paulus. And Marius was not adopted, he only married a women from the gens Iulia (Caesar's aunt) which was an ancient family but not rich neither infliential at that time.
Actually many wealth landowners would adopt a son as a heir. This sometimes happened when there was no biological son, but it did happen sometimes even when there was one. Often times this new son would marry a daughter. So while these specific Antonine Emperors might have had a lucky accident, if they adopt a son while having a biological one, the Romans wouldn't have batted an eyes. Adopting was a very public affair. No Roman besides Mark Anthony doubted Augustus was Caesar's son and heir after his adoption.
@@andrelegeant88 Yes, with Augustus taking it to a different level, in hopes of securing stability with the succession for his Principate system. Galba was kind of a more direct precursor to the "adoption system" of the "Five Good Emperors," but his adoption of Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus paradoxically created more instability and risk for him.
Depends on what you mean by recover. The crisis of the third century absolutely destroyed the Roman political system of the principate. Major cities and regional power structures got dismantled by Aurelian, Diocletian expanded the bureaucracy so that it was run by a professional civil service, Constantine (or maybe Diocletian, The reforms bleed into eachother) reformed the Roman military in a way that was markedly alien from the civilian-military overlap of the principate model, And the resulting empire was not an Italian empire based in rome, But one large uniform machine ruled by a quasi divine emperor. Rome was not the capital anymore , Rome was all the land between Scotland and Sudan, and the lives of all its citizens were heavily controlled. The Roman Empire never recovered in the sense that things would never be the same again after the crisis of the third century. However, In terms of functionality and capability. The period between Diocletians reforms and Valens loss at Adrianople was the Roman Empire at its most powerful. It could not only field more soldiers in numbers that were unthesible during the principate. But the states centralized bureaucracy was able to extract unforeseen amounts of material wealth from its own citizenry and logistically support its armies on a near industrial scale. It’s estimated that single campaigns under Constantius II were logistically supported by millions of bushels of Wheat. And what’s more? The economy of the Roman state REBOUNDS. Sure, Inflation was still an unaddressed problem in rome, But coin debasement was being dealt with by the invention of the Solidus and tighter imperial control on Mints, and in the meantime, The “in kind” taxation ensured that the state had all the material wealth it needed to stay afloat and maintain its armies We are now learning to better appreciate how powerful rome was after the third century, just because it slowed down on conquests and took a more defensively minded geo strategic stance does not mean that the Roman state was not in a golden age during the reign of constantine. If anything, Rome’s true decline was the unprecedented death of Theodosius and the ascendancy of his sons to the purple
The Western Empire had such a long and difficult to defend border, it was nearly impossible to defend with the limited amount of troops they were left with. Romans didn't want to fight for the army either. Basically the empire had doomed itself via its own internal divisions and the weakening of its economy.
@@josephperkins4857 it is also similar to Charles V of Habsburg's reign during the Great Reformation, like how the Crisis of the Third Century started the rapid decline of Rome. The Holy Roman Empire couldn't maintain its long-term stability amid internal schisms and mismanagement, alongside other Protestant countries taking advantage of the vulnerable situation. Like the Germanic tribes against the Western Roman Empire, the French took the opportunity to destroy the Habsburgs The HRE had to scale back a lot of critical militaries and other resources while facing high inflation in Spain, which the Spanish Empire did encompass the New World. While people continue this parallel between Rome and the USA, I think the United States is a multi-phasive decentralized Holy Roman Empire that presents various similar phases(or cycles) that once previously plagued Ancient Rome, the Byzantines, and later the Golden Empire.
The Eastern Empire hard arguably the same problem too, and it brunt the first wave of barbarian invasions, with the Goths killing the Eastern Emperor, rampaging through the Balkans and sacking Athens. They also suffered the brunt of the Hun raids before Attila and had to deal with a settled sophisticated empire in the Sassanids. In my view there are two reasons the West fell over the East. 1) There was far more civil wars and infighting. In the East the usurpation of Zeno was the only one for awhile, whereas in the West you had Majorian getting executed by his Magister Militum, then the empire ending with 3 coups in a row. This lack of internal stability left the empire vulnerable. 2) Probably even more important, what territory was lost/raided. The East had Egypt which was able to prop up its cities by feeding them, and which was relatively free from barbarian raids. The West however lost its equivalent in North Africa. The Vandals journey ending in Carthage put Rome at the mercy of the Vandals who would sack Rome in the 440's. Losing some territory in Gaul to the Visigoths and in Hispania to the Suebi was bad, but not crippling as losing North Africa was.
Rather than arguing that there was 'damage done' I'd argue that systems changed. I'd guess it was initially horsebreeding. Larger and stronger horses made it possible to use more armor resulting in stronger and better saddles as well as stirrups. This changed the decisive arm of war from being disiplined infantry (the base of the roman army since the Marian reforms) to the decisive arm being heavy cavalry. This requires a fundamental change in how you pay for your army. Your warriors now need land to keep their horses and they can't leave that land for long. This changes the army into one of militia and foederati along the frontiers with field armies tied to that agricultural core. If you can't project power into any agricultural core region you will lose that area permanently.
All the opposite: cavalry made the Roman army much more mobile (horses can pasture in almost any lands, they are the essence of nomadism, not sedentarianism). However elite units tending to "knights" also made it harder to train and equip, making those professionals essential (units you wouldn't want to lose, not recoverable by mere draft as in the early days of Rome), costly and potentially dangerous for the rulers.
8:55 That actually isn't unusual. In fact it's relatively recently where the bulk of government spending shifted away from the military, mainly since the late 1800's. For most of the history of administrative states, the vast majority of revenue went to the military. 70% is likely one of the lower percentages in the grand scheme of things.
Bro At start Rome had nearly no taxes at all like 0.1% yearly and similar for army doubles at time of war Also keep in mind at start only elites were taxed and they ended with huge welfare unknown horde of poor in Rome and taxed farmers to death forcing them to leave land and become the mob with free lunch
I quite liked this video, particularly your point about the empire relying too much on a single line of defence and the defence in-depth system being too easily disrupted by civil war. But you made several glaring errors about the economy. Firstly, every pre-industrial government spent the vast majority of their annual revenue on military spending. Secondly, while the silver currency (the antoninianus) did get debased into nothing, you neglected to mention anything about the gold solidus and even said it was debased as well (which it was not). The Roman Empire in the fourth to eighth centuries operated using a gold-copper system with there being three gold denominations, the solidus, semisis and tremisis and several copper denominations. The copper, which in the fourth and fifth centuries had a smaller silver content, did eventually get debased during the fifth century. However, especially in the east the economy was growing with vast swathes of land being brought under cultivation and the desperate need for a small denomination coin saw Anastasius I introduce the follis (40 nummi). So rather than a slow decline it was more fits and starts before eventually getting the system right in the late fifth century. There is also no mention about how the government mitigated the need for money to pay armies by paying for their equipment in kind, which was used from Diocletian to Anastasius I.
His point about Rome having a single line of defense is also not entirely correct because, at least on the eastern side of Italia, Rome did have a secondary line of defense called Claustra Alpium Iuliarum. It was a series of towers, walls and interconnected fortresses stretching from the seaport town of Tarsatica on the Adriatic (nowadays Rijeka in Croatia - you can still see the remnants of the Roman Principium in the Old Town) to roughly Emona (Ljubljana) and then to Forum Iulii (Cividale) in the Julian Alps.
No mention of Septimius Severus and Caracalla who increased the Legionnairs' pay by 150% (in some steps) ? In my opinion it was this enourmous rise of expenditure at the beginning of the third century wich really got the inflation going.
Afterward, Diocletian did the same thing, about 300 A.D., only making the problem worse. The Roman Government never figured out the basic principle that "The more money you make from nothing, the more inflation will rise to compensate."
Creating money from nothing (expansion of currency supply) IS the inflation. The rising prices are only effect of the inflation (shortages are another), not inflation itself.
Those are just symptomps, the real problem was that the mines had been exhausted but the oligarchic thirst for exotic Asian produce was never quenched (or even considered). Where did all the silver and gold go? It did not vanish inside the Roman Empire because people were throwing it into the Mediterranean, nope: it was exported to Asia in exchange of perishable luxuries such as cinnamom or silk. Otherwise inflation would have been much much slower, all or most of the silver would have been recovered via taxes or would otherwise be circulating inside the Empire. It was the silver drain what caused it, not anecdotal pay rises.
I noticed that you did not mention Emperor Serverus and his children, who I blame for the spiral of the empire, by doubling the pay of the solders and starting the debasement, then telling his kids to only care about the army and forget the senate. Who also doubled their pay and debased the currency to pay them, starting a chain reaction of emperors doing this over and over after being acclaimed emperor.
I keep saying, if Rome had set up an official, codified, system of power transference instead of always depending on who had the biggest army, it might have survived.
What a terrific video. Rome wasn't monolithic, there many different eras and systems. It's popular to try to find simple explanations for complex issues but clearly the fall of Rome came in many waves for multiple reasons.
You forgot the main problem: not so much the mines' exhaustion but the "silver drain" to India and other parts of Asia, the unending Euro-Mediterranean oligarchic thirst for absolutely unnecessary luxuries like cinnamom or silk. That oligarchic thirst for exotic luxuries did not only doom Rome but also raised Europe again 1000 years later, crazy! Otherwise a much needed documentary: Diocletian is often praised as savior... but he only kickstarted the Dark Ages an can even be considered a quasi-barbarian himself (and his orientalizing reforms): he hated Rome so much that he almost died upon visintng the city.
It would be interesting to contrast the rise in labor costs following the Black Death with the labor situation that developed following the Plague of Cyprian.
It's almost impossible to gauge. Historians probably overrate the issue of labor costs after the Black Death, just as they hype the death toll (the 1/3 figure many claim only documented in one French town, all the rest are much lower). While it would have an effect, especially as secondary waves affected mostly the less immunized youth, IMO the result has more to do with peasant urprisings and need of military manpower (peasants also fought wars, not just knights) than a mere lack of manpower. Even the increase in trade influenced that, much as today: those producers with lower costs (growingly in Eastern Europe at least for grain) displaced others with higher costs, which focused on producing other stuff like textile manufactures (Italy and Flanders notably, also Catalonia) wine or sugar (luxury goods only grown in certain areas) or even wool (a low workforce produce favored in Spain and England).
The population never recovered from the 3rd century crisis, or even from the mini crisis during the reign of Marcus A, lower population means less taxes and greater demand of the army pay on the smaller budget, which was always going to lead to difficulty
wasn't their taxing system very limited? maybe they taxed business to death and then no matter how big population it becomes so unproductive its useless for getting any revenue
10:08 I would also point out that the quality of citizen Legionaires had been way down for awhile. Prior to the Foederati System, the Auxilia not only made up the majority of the military, they were also more effective on the battlefield and became more prestigious.
Yes, the cycle of creation - prosperity - stagnation - decline - collapse repeats itself, and will wipe out our current civilization too, especially if we continue hurtling on this path of unsustainable excess and degeneracy
Exactly what I was thinking as I listened to this video. When will we ever learn and when will those in power have a more realistic view of our Nation (or any Nation) at this moment in time? We have cultural civil war ongoing right now with ideological and cult wars on Capitol Hill. There are serious warning signs including income inequality, a flawed justice system biased against the poor and we have been off of the gold standard since the early 1970s. In addition, we are allowing our Nation to be bankrupted by hordes of people seeking asylum. The picture isn't pretty.
During the Crisis of the 3rd Century, the Roman Empire "Exploded" from within (due to civil wars), and then about 100-150 years later it "Imploded" (due to the Barbarian invasions), and then finally just collapsed under its own weight (and inability to defend or support its self).
They believed so much about their eternity, that they never understood the civil wars were the big fail about their empire. Not even had some loyalty to the state or the sytem itself.
I absolutely agree. He tolerated the growing Christian religion versus Diocletian, who sought to continue to crush the ideology in most of the Roman Empire. While the radical elements were understandable to limit their influence, his policies still antagonized the broader Christian sect, and his Tetrarchy only reduce the moral authority that Rome had over various regions of the Empire.
@@SolidAvenger1290 He was also in a similar situation to Nerva as he was quite old and didn't have any male heir so it's likely he'd have adopted somebody which could have bought in another era of good emperors chosen through adoption
@@SolidAvenger1290 the problem was plebs who not felt Roman not Christianity but it so happens Christianity was popular in the plebs previous Roman plebs was an elite and participated in ruling with smart representation then it become communist pathology and Romans fed this cancer until it outgrew them
I beleve that the crises of 4th century destroyed Empire: civil ware of Constantine`s sons mainly. Batle of Mursa: AD 361. -60.000 dead; battle of Chryspolis AD 324 - 85.000 dead; battle of Cibalae 316 AD - 25.000 dead; battle of Frigidus 394 AD 20.000 dead. It also wrottened the character of population in general.
Was there really an "adoption system" in the 2nd century? Or was it simply that the first 3 emperors had no kids and thus chose their own successors? And the first emperor with a son abandoned this "system".
It was the second thing. Nerva chose Trajan because he was extremely popular between the soldiers and he needed the army's support. Hadrian was the closest male relative to Trajan and we don't know if it was Trajan's choice in his last breath or his widow's decission. Aurelius was a distant relative of Trajan and Hadrian by female lineage, and Hadrian imposed him and Verus as heirs to Antoninus. The only time one emperor select "the best man" was when Hadrian adopted Antoninus and even then it was only because Aurelius was too young.
I appreciate your passion and your videos very much. Thank you for sharing. My passion for the roman empire has grown so much since I found your channel. I think this is going to become a life long fascination.
Caracalla gave every free inhabitant of the Roman Empire the Roman citizenship with his Constitutio Antoniniana in 212, independent of ethnicity, religion, wealth or anything. This meant free movement within the empire, the right to settle down wherever they wanted, pariticipation in politics, the right to join the civil service, equality before the law, opening career paths to anyone independent of ancestry, etc. Diocletian turned the rural population back into some kind of serfs, forcing them to stay where they were born, withdrawing the right of free movement, even forcing the young generation to take the same jobs as their fathers - the son of a carpenter becoming carpenter again, the son of a farm hand staying a farm hand, etc. So he basically created again a class of a relatively unfree lower class. The laws of Diocletian stabilized the Empire in the short run, but he lay the foundation for medieval feudalism and soon the ruling upper class would be replaced by military leaders and later barbarian invaders, while the lower class stayed in the unprivileged status that he created.
Great analysis by Maiorianus! Congrats! I would like to put an emphasis to one of the mentioned problems for the Roman state in the III century - the lack of Roman recruits which caused the Barbarization of the Army. As Maiorianus said in the video, the currency crisis was the most significant problem for the Roman military along with the loss of Roman life during the plague and the bloody civil wars and barbarian incursions. I would like to point out another important problem for the Roman military recruitment system - the existence of the Casta system on first place and its eventual abolishment after a reality check in the borderlands in connection with the closed nature of the Legion as an institution. I will try to keep it short as a comment should be: 1. Casta social system required for a new recruit to be a Roman citizen both from his father and his mother side. This rule caused no problems in the early centuries of Rome when the legions were stationed mostly in Italy or close to home in Spain, Septimania or Greece and the Balkans. However, after the conquest of Gaul and the need of constant legionary stations along the Rhine for defensive purposes and the slow Romanization along this river, mainly because of security reasons and the exhaustion of the colonization pool (there were to many good places open for colonization and Rhine was not one of them) led to extraordinary levels of men born to Roman legionary fathers and non-Roman mothers. This made these men unsuited for the Roman legions even if their fathers served almost for life. This connects to the second problem: 2. The men in the legion were the only state servants paid by the state in gold outside of the city of Rome. Moreover, after the successful completion of the long military service the legionaries received large land grants in the provinces outside Italy (in most cases in the same region where their legion was based). This initially makes the service in the legion one of the best opportunities for the Plebs in Italy to migrate and eventually become rich. And because the service was well paid every legionary tried to put one of his sons in his place after retirement (this was the best option they knew for being successful). That's why in the early Roman centuries after the initial recruitment of a legion it was almost unheard of searching for new recruits outside of the legionary human pool except of rare occasions of large legionary losses. However, as already mentioned in 1 the situation on the Rhine was different and most of these legionary sons were not able to qualified for a place of a legionary. The only option for them was the much worse paid Auxilia where at least they were allowed to practice the profession of their fathers (maybe the only thing they were prepared for in their family). This system fraud caused a huge problem with the numbers of the Auxilia to rival the number of the Legions and even to surpass them in Rhine provinces. Emperor Caracala's fix for this problem was to give to this new potentially rebellious Casta full Roman citizen rights in the fashion of Romulus himself. However, the already mentioned currency crisis and the higher numbers of military losses overshadowed this act. Another factor was the actual territorial loss after the formation of the so called Gallic Empire. These legionaries became the core of the new "Gallic" forces which even pacified were not so keen to come back for service to the central government. Another important setback was the evacuation of Dacia which was heavily Romanized with large Roman legionary basis and vast gold and silver production. In this situation it is not a surprise that most of the new legionary recruits came from Dacia Aureliana and Pannonia and not from Italy or Spain. The men in Dacia Aureliana and Pannonia were one of the best preserved part of the legionary pool and lived close to the border unlike the Romans back in Italy, Greece and Spain. The insufficient numbers and the higher need of troops led to the process of Barbarization... The Roman history is a dance between the Necessity and the Desire just like the life is...
Amazing video, one of your best and that says something! I know we can see the decay of the romans through their artworks and craftsmanship, as you also explored on another video. The hard to believe frescoes of Pompeii and Herculaneum were a thing of the past already in the 300s AD
The third reason was never solved even towards the fall of Constantinople. It explained how the East Roman (Byzantine) empire had too many civil wars that outsiders from the Crusaders to the Ottomans exploited.
When talking about history people too often focus on lines on the map or army sizes, rather than things like population (both in terms of size and structure), political and administrative systems, state of the economy and infrastructure etc. Take "reunited" Rome at the end of Justinian's reign. On the surface it looked great, with the reconquest of rich and prestigious provinces (Africa and Italy respectively). Even on a systemic level Justinian managed to push through some much needed legal and tax reforms. But with population decimated by wars and the plague and imperial coffers largely depleted, the Empire was in fact much weaker than it appeared. Regarding the Republic being unstable, I think this statement needs a caveat. It only became unstable as the "middle class" of free citizen-farmers began to shrink, as more and more wealth was accumulated by the super-rich landowners. The republican system was in fact quite stable, as long as the societal structure present at its inception held on.
@@HDreamer I don't think *any* democratic/republican system can survive a situation, when the society becomes a de facto oligarchy. The only two ways it can adapt is either to introduce measures that would reduce wealth inequality, thus remaining a republic, or transition into a dictatorship.
@@HDreamer To some extent, sure. Still, there is a difference between a situation where you have a privileged elite wielding a disproportionate amount of power, but balanced by a sizable "middle class" that also has rights and agency within the political system (early Roman Republic), and a situation where the elite has accumulated virtually all the power and wealth, while almost everybody else is living off scraps (late Republic). In the latter situation, you won't find many people willing to stick out their necks in defense of status quo.
Here's something I just discoverd and am sharing around to the history buffs I know: Around the 17min mark of Dragon Ball Episode 44 (not Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball) the characters are hanging out at a sculpture garden and in that sculpture garden is a pink replica of the "Serpent Column" !!O_O!!
Love your work on late Roman history Maiorianus! 😎😉 We need more vids about, did Rome's trade with India actually destroy the empire's economy? Because Rome's desires for silks, spices and other previous goods were traded mostly with their own gold & silver coinage and bullion to India, that eventfully dried up over time in just a few centuries since the days of the republic = till the crisis of the 3rd century with the inflations & debasing of their coins... due to shortages, and the mines running dry. That situation was never fixed till the Eastern Roman Empire's time under Justinian and after, due to diplomacy in exchange deals between them made to fix it in negotiations... and monks stealing silk worms from China in making their own industry of it all back home in the empire in Asia minor. Please have a look on that research and see if it's a great topic to make for a vid next in the upcoming weeks or months. 👌
Good point Peter,, but in my opinion it was the lack and more modern industrial innovation that was the issue,,, if they could have produce goods that other cultures and tribes wanted instead of sending just gold to trade it would not have been so harmful. Just thinking about the fall ,,,,maybe they ddid not actually "Fall" but went bankrupt... Same thing really
@@lipsee100 Maybe they did, maybe the Romans did ask India, it's rulers and officials & people what they would like in products to buy, need or want instead in other bits with lists to show or goods they brought with them from the empire & Egypt all over to East Asia onboard with them on their ships to see... but the rulers may've rejected them all mostly except gold & silver demands for their palaces they filled them all with & their temples there. Everything in gold & silver from over there in India mostly came from Rome in trade over the many centuries, Persia & others, although they did have their own mines here & there... the trade from all other nations they made deals with brought it in the majority. So all of that gold & silver mostly in India was stolen by them from Rome & others by India in unfair trade agreements, and then Britain stole it mostly all right back almost 2 millennia later... how ironic the tables turn. Already gone now and decentralized across the world... but throughout human history = 250,000 plus to 1 million plus tons of gold has been mined up until now... with much more beneath the earth's deep crust that can't all be mined. 2500 to 3650 tons of gold mined worldwide per year... silver about 25,000 to 26,000 tons a year too. As I said earlier, Eastern Rome did negotiate new deals with India to ease the burden and stole some silk worm eggs from China to help out even more with their own industry back home in Asia minor... but by then, the damage was all but done for the main empire united... and under Justinian's rule till later in centuries onwards. If only they all realized this much sooner = 6 centuries sooner under Julius Caesar... they could've saved so much money in loss of gold & silver. 😅
Yes! You're putting the finger on what really matters the most: the silver drain! There would not have been that much of a devaluatio problem if the silver stayed in the Empire, which it mostly did except for that unplugged drain hole that the Ptolemaids opened in the Red Sea and Rome didn't even pay attention to, as it payed huge taxes. This issue of endless luxury demand for Asian goods has driven not just Roman collapse but also later European rise from the ashes (until now, when we're becoming again consumers that produce nothing but overrated currency).
As major gold and silver mines in Europe after Roman empire were in Cezhia and Slovakia, why Roman never really want to conquer there although it is right next to the border of empire itself?
It certainly changed. But then again, the Empire at its full power was probably never that sustainable anyway. Its amazing it lasted as long as it did..
I'd also add to this that the reforms of Diocletian were, in the long run, counterproductive. They brought temporary stability in the economy at the expense of permanent stagnation.
Maiorianus, I have to say that your second point at 13:13 that the Romans never build a second line of defense is incorrect. I'm surprised that you never heard about the Claustra Alpium Iuliarium which was the last line of defense before entering Italy from the East. It consisted of towers, walls and interconnected fortresses stretching from the seaport town of Tarsatica on the Adriatic (nowaday Rijeka in Croatia - you can still see the remnants of the Roman Principium in the Old Town) to roughly Emona (Ljubljana) and then to Forum Iulii (Cividale) in the Julian Alps.
The seeds of the fall are planted during the ascent. Institutions that worked under early conditions tend not to work when conditions change. The fact that the Roman Empire lasted so long is testament to the adaptability of the Romans. Just look at the evolution of the military. Lacking spectacular technological breakthroughs, the Roman military was still able to adapt to changing military and economic conditions. But nothing is durable forever.
Sometimes the cure also caused further issues, Diocletian’s draconian tax reforms increased revenue to sustain a larger army, but also made society much more repressive and less energetic
@@jabronisauce6833 - The joke is on you: Dark Ages is a very valid term, in fact many parts of the Western Roman Empire went back to full prehistorical or proto-historical levels in terms of documentation (zero), while others have some texts but not many. Compare that to the quite common literacy in the Roman Empire, at least before the Constantinian decision to enslave everybody in terms of colonatum (what we would later call serfdom) and devastate the economy with idiotic ultra-austericide.
@@LuisAldamizbut what really could had they had done? If only if they had chinese inventions ,they could had atleast had Better agricoltural productions, and could had Exchange silver coins with more kind of annona(like silk in han empire)or they should had adopted some like the theme sistems
@@alessandrogini5283 - You're probably right about the Chinese developments such as the heavy plough, at least for Atlantic Europe (Gaul, Britain and remote parts of Spain in the case of the Roman Empire), however the heavy plough was useless or even counter-productive for the thin Mediterranean soils, so what happened eventually anyhow was that the economic and thus political center moved towards Belgium and nearby areas... but that was already well into the Middle Ages. What could Rome have done in or after (or even before) the 3rd century crisis? Maybe cut the luxury demand, "degrowth" to a sustainable economy and stop importing silly stuff from Asia (silk and spices essentially). We can call this the Ptolemaic Trap or maybe even the Kleopatra Trap, as she was the one who last ruled Egypt before the Romans and is more iconic(I don't think it has a name... until now, it's the Luxury Demand Trap in any case): Ptolemy and successors, as rulers of Egypt, opened a trade route to India, from where luxuries were imported for the Hellenistic aristocracy and then the Roman one. After the last common sense in Rome pretty much vanished with the death of Augustus (the last one to understand that Germany was more important than Persia even if poorer not fitting the Alexandrine quasi-mythological theme of "marching to the East", of "conquering Asia"), Rome was obsessed with Asia and totally gave up its wealth in silver and gold to buy their pointless merchandise. In a sense, Rome willingly became a colony of India (and China-Persia via the first Silk Road), just as later semi-colonial princes of Africa and elsewhere sold everything, including their people, for trifles. Yes, spices and silk are trifles, yet they drove Roman and European history for centuries because of the "gluttony" of our posh rulers. They ruined Rome and, a thousand years later, they drove European imperialism, briefly giving Europe the success denied since the Roman decline... and quite ironically turning those Asian trifles into less valuable stuff and finally making Europe able to export something that was produced by hard work and ingenuity: industrial products. Maybe the Romans could have tried to industrialize? They knew a lot of stuff later used for industrialization like the principle of the steam engine and clockwork engineering. But the Roman aristocracy were not into that, they were into war and poshness, working was perceived as lesser and they felt they had no need to replace slave labor for any sort of mechanization (with exceptions, early Rome was excellent at engineering but then they did not build on that, they mostly just were content to stagnate). In a sense this is the same that happened to China when the Tang burned the Canton merchant fleet out of arrogance and conservatism, allowing Europeans to become strong in their backyard and eventually pose an existential threat to China, which was almost partitioned into many colonial fragments a century-plus ago. In a sense it is the same that happened to the Muslim World as Caliphs became growingly conservative and hyper-religious, losing contact with reality and allowing the now dynamic, rationalist and hyper-competitive Europeans to get the upper hand. Unlike the trading powers of Greece and Phoenicia, Rome lacked curiosity, they were very good at war and little more, they won so much and that made their oligarchs so mindbogglingly mega-rich, that they could not really do anything else but decay by selling out the family jewels in exchange of some cinamon flavor.
Its a bit off topic, but perhaps relevant to ask if a comparison can be made, where in the Roman Republic/Empire would you say the United States is today? If America has transitioned to an 'empire', what year/events would support that assessment? Perhaps the administration of Theodore Roosevelt or William Howard Taft were the last presidents of the American republic? I don't know the answer and am interested in what the viewers and the channel say. Thanks for all the great videos - very thought provoking and great to set the record straight on actual history vs what have been told for centuries.
08:08: Gold mines were abandoned... It is a strange assumption. Gold means gold! Mining gold is the first thing to do for every nation. Much better to mine gold than to work for it, isn`t it?.. One can miss any activities - farming, handycraft, construction, - but not gold mining! Yet we see the evidences of this huge production drop... I just think there are some more serious apocalyptical reasons for that rather than people just being lazy.
Though the effects of the third century crisis were among the causes of the fall of the imperial western state, i think the cost of the war agains Attila was more important. While the Eastern Romans managed to stop the raids in the Balkans and paid the huns to withdraw, the Western Romans did not have resources, armies and the competition between both eastern and western courts and magister militums, explains the collapse of western provincies in the V century.
Could you maybe do some videos on how Nicomedia (& other cities) used to look like? Most of it cannot be dug up because of the modern city, but I suppose some reference is given in literary texts
1. century BC that was caused Civil wars was a warning. Changing from free owner to paid army that answers to private generals and senators that command and pay soldiers was the biggest problem. Without a private army/militia, Rome could be a Republic. When a private person in one way or another finances an army/militia it is a matter of time when he/she will get the upper hand and overthrow the government.
I must say I never particularly saw any difference between the "3rd century crisis" and the many other periods from the time of Marius onwards, when Roman & Byzantine Generals used their armies to wage civil war.
Just a Quick question, why did the legions stop wearing Amor? I know its because of the costs, but would a smaler but better secured army not be more efficient?
The question isnt appropriate to the topic being presented. if its a strictly 1 to 1 value, then the answer is an obvious YES because it survived the crisis stronger is some ways. But obviously nobody would ever say that the empire after the crisis remained the same as the empire before, major changes were made to deal with the crisis.
Yes & No. The events after "The Crisis of the Third Century" was only a brief respite/postponement of the broader issues plaguing the Roman Empire. Aurelian, alongside his fellow student Emperor Probus, was likely the best chance that the Empire could have another Golden Age after the crisis, but their deaths were another example of Rome's corruption & jealousy to destroy the greatness of men who both saved the Empire Although Emperor Diocletian brought the Roman Empire back from the brink after the battle of Margus, it still brought mixed results for the Romans in the long run. Part tyrant, part organizational genius, Diocletian remains an influential and controversial figure in history, similar to Emperor Justinian. The success of Diocletian's Tetrarchy was very mixed. The smooth succession he had hoped for with his junior emperors did not last. King Charlemagne would indirectly repeat the same cycle after he died for the Holy Roman Empire with his successors in Francia. Although the method he used for breaking provinces among multiple emperors would continue in various forms, the temptation for emperors to install their children as their co-rulers proved too great into upcoming decades up til the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 A.D and much later establishing the feudal power struggle through the Age of Charlemagne into almost the Late Middle Ages. Diocletian's actions did stabilize the empire for a time, but his ruthlessness in Rome started the chain reaction that would see its own citizens (alongside the purge of Christians) create the schism that would create the division between Western & Eastern Empires.
If managing the frontiers with sufficient manpower was such a problem, then why didn't the Romans create wasteland buffer zones beyond the frontiers in, for example, Germania?
The plan of Augustus from what I recall was to extend conquest into Germania and until I believe the Elbe river. These proposed borders had the benefit of a sort of continual line of natural defences which combined with the Romans defences would've proved far more defenceable and manageable.. Unfortunately or fortunately (idk up to you) Germanicus was called back during his conquest and Marcus Aurleius died before he could finish his conquest so this plan never occured. (Before someone says what about the Battle of Teutoborg, that just pissed the Romans off and they got more than ample revenge for it)
They actually did this for a time by periodically crossing over into Germania and razing tribal settlements. However, this activity was infrequent and sporadic. Clearing out lands tends to create unsettled areas that are quickly filled by new inhabitants. Over time, Romans at the borders developed economic and familiar relations with these tribes.
Marius vs Sulla Catiline Caesar vs the Senate Octavian versus everyone Year of the 4 Emperors Year of the 5 Emperors Year of the 6 Emperors War between Diocletian's successors War between Constantine's successors Julian versus Constantius The entire 5th Century The entirety of Byzantine history And that's just the civil wars, never mind the assassinations and palace coups. Political instability was endemic in Roman politics and very far from confined to the 3rd Century. All had its roots in the military reforms of Marius, which resulted in soldiers becoming loyal to their Generals/Officers rather than the state.
I get why the Romans never have the orderly succession system because of their deep hatred toward monarchy. No, this is real. They proclaimed the Imperator office to be a republican one. And they do not wanted a system of kingship to be revived. And yes, I know that by the time of the Eastern Roman Empire, it's basically kingship in all but name. But formality is also important to the public. If the formal declaration of making the Empire a monarchy never happened, the peoples will still considered their country to be a republican country. As for the debasement of the currency, my solution to that point is to dissolve the majority of the military and then distribute the military assets to the provincial governors to use to defend the borders, which might lead to the new defense systems being developed in case the first line of defenses are breached. And this is coming from me, the guy who is not much of a fan of the Ruusan Reformation in Star Wars.
In Greek, the emperor is called Basileus, which simply means king in the classical era. The Mycenaean term was Anax, originally Wanax, but Alexander was termed Basileus. Let’s never forget that more people in the empire spoke Greek rather than Latin.
@@Joanna-il2ur I know that. But it's just that both titles sort of being used interchaneably. Sometimes, it's the Imperator. But sometimes, it's the Basileus.
@@lerneanlion By the time of the Later emperors, the concept of kingship was long gone. Diocletian brought back an equally dishonoured term: Dominus, Lord. True, Domitian had played around with it, but then he was assassinated. Generally the term had been Augustus. The title was little used by Augustus, who was usually called Caesar to his face. In any case, all emperors had usually been adults. The unexpected death of Theodosius in January 395 led to a new phenomenon: the Patrician, not always used but from Stilicho onwards, the emperor reigned and the Patrician ruled. Weak emperors were walked over by Patricians and others. That’s why nobody much noticed when Odoacer took over and then after him Theodoric. They were doing things nominally under the authority of a distant emperor in Constantinople.
In so far as Rome's Republican empire did under the Caesaro-Julian revolutionary empire, no; that is not at all, in fact, but broadly somewhat in Octavian metaphor. The Aurelian-Diocletian-Constantinian Dominate Empire certainly took up where the Augustan Principate Empire had failed, and indeed had fallen apart; yet it did not reconstruct the old empire but constructed a new form of an empire, still Roman in name (if increasingly less so in lived reality, not least in contrast to the Repubilc's empire). ;o)
My Take in order of importance from most to least: 1. Flawed succession system. Like most pre-modern states, Rome's succession system was unstable and expensive. Rule by patronage, ruinous donatives to the army, poor 'buy-in' from aristocrats, and a general lack of legitimacy plagued Rome from Casear onwards. I don't think we see improvement on this problem until the modern period with constitutions, judiciaries, elected legislators, voting, meritocratic hiring, and limits to executive powers. 2. Flawed geography. The area Rome inhabited did not lend itself to permanently secure borders. The absolute best geographic situation might be a large, remote, circular Island with crisscrossing rivers. Europe was far from that ideal with its flank exposed to a giant, remote plain, amoung other invasion routes from the east. 3. Flawed assimilation policies. Rome lacked the forsight to shape and maintain a broad, unified cultural narrative of what it ment to be a Roman. In our modern era, this is done through education and media. The closest Rome ever came to this was the policy of breaking up settler tribes, the use of state religious ceremonies, sponsored games, and manditory military service in the republic. All this was just not enough to instill a lasting, shared Roman identity in the way we see in the modern era. 4. Flawed economy. Rome's pre-industrial economy relied heavily on exploiting farm labor and natural resource extraction. Famines, plagues, a loss of agricultural lands or workers could all seriously weaken the state's ability to respond to a crisis. It didn't help that monetary policy was crude and relied on the judgment of autocrats and their personal interests. Add periods of slave injection into the system, along with periods of land consolidation and you have one heck of an unstable system.
In a nutshell, it's not the _absolute strength_ of an empire, it's the _relative strength compared to its neighbors_ which dtermines its power. After crisis of the 3rd century, the Roman Empire was severely weakened relative to its potential adversaries. A Roman soldier looked almost identical to a "barbarian" warrior. Add to this that 2/3 of the Roman economy was located in the Eastern part, the continuing of the economic decline in the 4th century, a downward trend in population etc. and you'll get to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
Nope. As was so often the case - in the real turmoil that was the actual, lived life of Rome - a different (though contiguous or quirkily continuous) kind of 'Rome' emerged, filled up what space it could (make a living from), and carried on. The Rome of Aurelius, Diocletian and Constantine was not that of Antoninus Pius, Trajan or Vespasian .. any moreso than theirs was that of Claudius, Augustus or Caesar ... et al; but still and all, in a defiantly odd way, it was (almost despite itself). Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)
Another thing to consider is the state of intellectual culture in the Empire at this time. And it is not good. Take philosophy -- can you really put Plotinus in the same league as greater men? Does anybody besides specialists actually read him -- or suffer from that lack? There is nothing in philosophy worth the consideration of the general reader between Marcus Aurelius and Boethius! Science? Roman technology was impressive (though from our modern hindsight grossly underused) but what we would call "basic research?" There is an increased tendency to rely on authority, and a disturbing trend of preferring wrong answers (like Ptolemy's estimate of the size of the earth, to say nothing of his heliocentric epicycles) over right ones (like Eratosthenes') Literature? There are the comedies of Menander (the school for Shakespeare and Molière) but other than that? The waspish and often unmanly epigrams of Martial, the worthy-of-a-modern-like-Genet Cena Trimalchionis. Is there anything first-rate from a heroic lifeview in Latin and her daughters between the Aeneid and the Chanson de Roland? Our age, suffering from its own disappearance of quality, should pay attention!
The adoption system would have worked if Marcus Aurelius’ General had accepted his offer of co-emperor instead of saying no and leaving the throne to Commodus🤮 If a son proved himself worthy an official adoption and renaming ceremony could have been performed but no, they relied on luck
Summary 4:37: 🏛 이 비디오는 로마 제국의 체계적인 결함에 대해 논의하며, 통화 불안과 군사 비용 등이 3세기 위기 이후에 완전히 해결되지 않았음을 다룹니다. 로마 제국의 전체 세수 수입의 최대 70%가 군대 유지에 사용되었습니다. 9:04: 🏛 로마 제국은 경제 불안정, 방어 전략의 결점, 그리고 계승 체계의 부재와 같은 다수의 도전에 직면했다. 넓은 국경에 비해 보조 방어선이 없고 도로망으로 침략이 쉬움 13:45: 🏛로마 제국은 일관된 계승 체제를 확립하는 데 어려움을 겪었으며 내전과 불안으로 이어졌습니다. 18:16: 🏛로마 제국은 훌륭한 황제를 배출한 행운으로 안정화되었지만 체계적 문제를 완전히 해결하지 못했습니다.
As the video began, minor errors started piling up. Neither the "Gallic Empire", nor the "Palmyrene Empire" ever declared independence, Those were territories controlled by rebellious pretenders to the supreme power over the whole of the Roman lands. Both terms were later inventions by historians.
The Gallic Empire was more of a case of the Rhine Legions assuming independent command to secure Gaul from external threats without interference from the central government - Postumus at least showed no inclinations of marching on Rome. Now Zenobia's ambitions likely entailed getting Vaballathus recognized as co-Augustus with Aurelian at the very least.
@@Burgermeister1836 I wasn't arguing about the military aspect. I simply noted those weren't secession alluding to the Confederacy on the eve of the American Civil War.
Running out of gold/silver mines were not a problem (new world silver did not save the Spanish), losing the ability to tax at reasonable rates were. Entire regions were devastated, the tax collector was just as bad as the barbarians and often came with an army. The barbarians you could negotiate, hard to negotiate with the tax collector of a person who saw him as second only to God... Killing blow came when people realized that "Rome" couldn't protect them and living under Romanized barbarians were not so bad.
To help the Roman Empire they would have to make the office of Imperator perinate by-election, Crassus invades Dacia instead of Parthia and wins ensuring the survival of the first Triumvirate, the second Triumvirate conscience of Octavian, Mark Anthony, and Crassus son instead of Lepidus. Lastly, no stupid wars against Persia are not worth it Germania is the target prime.
They should've start focusing on farming economy, less recruitment time, investment more on rural development, support marrige between Romans and Other people, make philosophy as the state core beliefs, give up the Eastern or African lands, focus more on taming Eastern Europe and be humble.
I don't see Eastern Rome surviving as an empire till today as far as the era of Napoleon in the 1800s, it might have reformed into the Eastern Roman Republic = with a Roman style government with a senate & constitutional monarch = as the successor to the old roman republic in name... but it would mostly be a Greek speaking population with a Democratic republic style management post revolution period as it modernized into the industrial period... but far better off than the Ottomans, as they would be less brutal and far less expansionistic in landmass they would hold onto... only defensive & taking back lands that originally belonged to them around Asia Minor & the Balkans. If Eastern Rome won against the Turks at Manzikert with a more organized force & got their sh&t together with stopping powerplays in leadership and having a full functional government after Basil the 2nd, and drove back all migrants after the Turks back into Persia... as well as negotiated with the Mongols later on in not invading in return for tribute & trade = then they would be no crusades, means no 4th one, means no Ottomans, meaning no age of discovery for another 2 centuries due to eastern trade still being open for trade, means that Eastern Rome could have survived till today's world, but better off than Greece is today... which means no Turkey... which means a more safer Western Asia & Southern Europe. Eastern Rome would be defending itself during the imperial era of Europe in new struggles, and when WW1 & 2 comes about on the allied side but mostly armed neutral in defence... and cold war, they would be neutral again between the Allies and Russia = mostly staying out of both sides in return for just basic trade between them as mediators. They would be their own great Greco Roman Christian culture with some forms of democracy & republic style governments, but not taking sides yet being a place where problems can be resolved by keeping the conflicts separate in that region from boiling over between the two great powers. Eastern Rome would be a great regional power itself, but not like America or Russia... yet they would be great in their own right as one of the longest lasting civilization on earth = second & third behind China & India. The middle east might be more stable between Armenia + Georgia, Syria + Iraq and the Levant while they kept their borders closed while doing some humanitarian aid now & again... and 9/11 properly would not have happened... and even if terrorism continued to exist as today, it would be far less than what we know. Constantinople would be the capital of Greece today, not Athens... and both cities & others would be far better off than in our own timeline intact = a great tourist attraction all around indeed. It will still have its own problems like all other nations today, but still better off than our own... how I would love to imagine visiting them now in that alternate time in their prime condition. And the war in Ukraine might not have ever had happened, and even if it still did... Eastern Rome would still remain armed neutral, but be ready for anything that comes up, due to all the millennia of conflicts they've had all around in knowing what can happen in invasions. Humanitarian aid, closed borders, neutrality and diplomacy... Eastern Rome might even make it so that both sides would admire Constantinople as a great trading partner in making the regions nearby more peaceful, but still neutral when keeping both sides from one another's necks... but they might not be a Euro or NATO member, but instead their own Eastern block of their former territories in alliances instead. Made up of Southern Europe + Western Asia, the Levant and North Africa... as a third or fourth party that tries to stay out of it all in neutrality, but ready to defend should something happen. Western Europe & America would admire them for being both the first Western civilization as Greece, but also the continued successor of Rome as a former empire in culture & more, but still have rocky relationships due to legitimacy issues in their jealousy toward the former empire. While Russia themselves would admire them for their influence during the medieval ages in diplomacy + culture, history and trade... yet still be jealous themselves of their rich southern neighbour in denying them any expansion south into Europe and Asia with some few past conflicts before now.
Great thinking, but were are talking about the Romans. Civil wars are imminent throughout of their history regardless of a crisis, if not, in most cases, as an opportunity for rising pretenders who use the populace and the army to declare themselves as Emperors (e.g. Phocas) and kill their predecessors. Even after the disastrous battle at Manzikert, the palace court back in Constantinople fought against each other for succession, even when the Turks settled in Anatolia. Through luck and competence, the Komnenoi dynasty managed to secure the Empire's remain lands. And even if they managed to repel foreign threats like the Turks, the Arabs, or the Mongolians, the Romans/Byzantines would still clash with the West. Even if it would rapidly industrialize, the Empire would come face to face with another foreign power if they share borders or spheres of influence. The "Great Game", for example was an early form of the Cold War between Great Britain and Imperial Russia over dominance in Central Asia. Fight for international prestige would still exist, whether the Empire would have been an autocratic conservative power or a liberal democratic parliament headed by the executive President. Much like how Britain and France fought against each other for most of their history, even if the regimes changed for time to time (until the creation of the German Empire), so would the Roman Empire would fight with an equal rising power (e.g. Tsardom of Rus, France, Britain, etc.) for dominance over their spheres of influence. In short, a geopolitical war (regardless of politics and ideologies) would still exist, and many minor powers who became involved in proxy wars with a great power will still pay the price for being exploited by their overlords. Whether the Greco-Roman alternate world would appear less dangerous is unknown, but it would have have been an understatement to say that the Eastern Roman Empire would appear on the righteous side, at least on the political scale. Even today, most people accuse the West for various reasons (e.g. corruption, exploitation in the past, and even the install of dictatorial puppet governments over their homelands [especially in South America during the Cold War]). You might think that I condemn the E.R.E, but what I am trying to point out is that the Empire would still become a rogue menace in global politics if it doesn't align itself with the interests and politics of the great powers. Contemporary, if the Greco-Roman Empire (or a successor state) would be controlled in a similar fashion to modern Russia, they would be condemned internationally by the West.
@@angelb.823 If they remove the military from political positions and vice versa with the officials running the governments in keeping the two from one another's positions to seize or keep power in operating it all in dividing power with lesser responsibilities in basics to do only in government works of managing only without military experience... they will not be able to rebel or take the empire for itself as they would not know how to run it after doing so with extra warning. Get rid of the nobility too, and recruit people of merit from all over the empire & later eastern republic, and it will give them more of a patriotic duty to remain loyal for only their limited terms in office and not for powerplay positions. Eastern Rome might have its own flaws throughout history in bad rep, but who doesn't when it comes to human civilizations all around past & present times. The western kingdoms have been at Eastern Rome's throat since the beginning in wanting legitimacy & prestige as successors to the main Roman empire after the medieval ages began, even though they aren't despite political marriages now & again... and Byzantium pretty much gave them the finger in denying it all... because they don't want usurping nations to their legacy in attempting take overs. The East has also wanted to expand and gain more from the fallen empires of Byzantium and Persia after their final 26 year war together in one excuse after another... so Eastern Rome would have others eventfully to deal with... while also dealing with the upcoming Western powers during the 18th & 19th centuries banging at their doorsteps nearby for unfair trade deals in access to all resources there in the middle east. Conflict between rival nations & political intrigue between all is unavoidable = as they all would want to keep a hold of or expand their influences & power in growth... Eastern Rome keeping to their Eastern regions with trade between nations all around to increase their economy leading to industrializing... while their enemies would demonize them while asserting their prideful self destructive causes that led to endless wars & WW1 and 2 in constant sufferings. Byzantium would not be a rogue state in my opinion, but a free local state trying defend itself from trouble-making outsiders trying to exploit them in many fields. Eastern Rome would be controlling areas around the southern Balkans with Greece & former Yugoslavia + possibly Crimea in southern Ukraine + Southern Italy & Sicily with their Greek populations if they can keep it secured from main Italy trying to take it for themselves in unification after the Normans are kicked out after that earlier major battle... + Anatolia, Armenia with Georgia and Syria as their East border regions... with the Levant would be one state of their own in this timeline and Egypt being their own as well with Liberia and West North Africa as part of the Southern Eastern block as allies of former territories. Even if the Western allies condemn Eastern Rome for former atrocities = it would be nothing compared to China & Russia's own... and Byzantium is not going to listen to some political barbarians/pigs who are trying to play divide & conquer with them... as they know all too well themselves and can call them out on it as well with proof. Being a smart power, and not a soft & weak one... not strong & stiff either... but perfectly balanced, as all things should be... it may falter now & again, but given the chance in luck = they can be something great for our modern times in the balance of power & stability. Hashtag/#: Thanos did absolutely nothing wrong... his plan was just flawed in performance... humanity is the problem. 😅 Byzantium would still be far friendlier than China & Russia in trading with, but would not join either side for some BS cause that led to Ukraine... and they would most certainly keep troublemakers mostly out. It would be the main hub for trade in Western Asia between the West leading further east... and with being the main great power in the region, it's better for none of them to play economic powerplays in getting sanctioned themselves backfiring between all. Conflicts would most certainly break out in the past now & again between fighting Eastern nations & Western expansion in their regions during the 18th & 19th centuries, but it would be far better off in stability than the Ottomans... as Eastern Rome never had that type of manpower going beyond retaking more than their original power in territories = just defensive closest to home. These days, I can see them using their mobile smaller modern armies & special forces in keeping Russia out of the middle east & parts of Eastern Europe if something were to happen... and even if 9/11 still happened = they would keep West Asia mostly peaceful & secure with their regional allies, while the western allies are further East instead... because Iraq would be smaller & weaker in this timeline and not much of a threat if Byzantium deals with them while keeping the peace & the west out in operations. So America & its allies would focus mostly on Afghanistan without being stretched out too much in expense... while in this timeline, Isis would not exist or would be wiped out much sooner. There would be some corporations between NATO & the Eastern Block of Eastern Rome... but they would be kept at arms length in limited activities under watch to stop any rogue elements from doing stupid things along the way in transporting them there in permissions traveling around the regions. Byzantium would be a major power in the world, but mostly local while trading with the rest of world & having great tourism... the Eastern Roman block would mostly be operating in its original territories in Southern Europe, West Asia and North Africa for developing their economies and stabilities in those regions. Once Ukraine breaks out, they would declare their armed neutrality and take up a million or so refugees at most in housing, while putting them to work in helping maintaining their stay & lives there till the war is over, while also negotiating with the West for transporting some to their countries for safety or aiding them in supplies... while still keeping their forces out to not provoke Russia. They might even close their borders to keep them all out and transport them to other countries instead... after what happened in far back in memories with the Goths. But tensions between Byzantium with the West & Russia would be balanced at best... but I think they would try to moderate between the two in preventing further conflict. Eastern Rome would not be a threat to the West in any terms of military might, but they would not be on the west's complete side with their flawed ideologies, and they would most certainly would not side with Russia in this either = so it's better for them to be a third or forth party that can balance things out, or stay out of it all between them. But Eastern Rome would most certainly win the department in culture, history + art, trade + tourism, and the legitimate areas as the continuation of the Roman empire, where the others are not. It would be a economic powerhouse itself on par with parts of Euro, but not compared to China & the US... but third place at best, or one of the top ten at least. Byzantium will always have its good & bad parts about itself as with any other civilization/nation... but I believe that it would be far better off than the Ottomans.
That's a great rant, but very wrong. The eastern romans were no more barbaric or bloodthirsty than the turks, they were just progressively more and more incompetent. Your rant is filled with so many what-if's that it is pretty much in the realm of fantasy. I'll dismiss it as wishful thinking of a wistful romaboo. However, if I was less forgiving, it would seem you find middle easterners and central asians to be less civilized than europeans -- ie, racist. I know you aren't, but that is how your rant comes across as
This has far too much liberal idealism to ever be realistic. Orthodox Empires have historically remained autocratic to the end; the Enlightenment is a thoroughly post-Reformation Western idea.
I don't think Rome got lucky in the 3rd century with the Emperors it had, the system produced these leaders however by the fifth century this system was no longer the same as it had been 200 yrs earlier (keep in mind this is a long time) that produced the likes of Honorius and Valentinian III. You might also want to spend some more time on foreign influences e.g., Ricimer Magister militum (you've done several good videos on this topic) but also extend this treatment to the emperors, Constantine I and Theodosius I during the later stages of the Western Roman Empire, the imperial throne was occupied by rulers who did not necessarily share Roman heritage as well as the administrative system and its legions no longer run by Romans leading to the division of the empire, Rome no longer considered the capital as non-Romans no longer wanted to be in Rome - all this a warning to us today as mass-immigration overwhelms the Western Democracies
I have a question: do you have a video on emporer Julian Apostata? f not, he would make an interesting topic for a new video. PS: Nice Video, i really enjoy your channel! Thanks!
⚔ SPQR Shop, excellent hand-crafted Roman rings and other items: spqrshop.com/?sca_ref=4770010.FM16q4LJHr
Enter the code "Maiorianus" to get a 10% discount on every purchase. The ideal present for any fan of Rome 😉!
you must start making videos on newtopics my friend
Would be nice if you start uploading shorts again, just the long videos are fine but i liked the sorts alot (like a filler between the long video uploads)
Just a brief correction. The Antonine Emperors never had a "adoption system", it only happened because none of the Antonine Emperors until Marcus Aurelius actually had any eligible heirs. There was no system of adoption, it was more like just a lucky accident.
It's more the case that Roman culture had an adoption system
@@andrelegeant88 lot of people don't understand this. Scipio Africanus and Gaius Marius were both adopted in more established families. Octavian marrying into the Claudii really upped his prestige by a lot. Many families would marry into one another to maintain elite status or as a trade off (one side has money the other side has the better name). This was a super common thing and its really not until the 1st century BCE proscriptions and then the rise of provincial elite in the 1st and 2nd centuries that the italian nobility weren't able to just marry one another and stay on top.
@@geordiejones5618 Not Africanus but his step-grandson, Africanus Minor,who was bilogical son of Aemilius Paulus. And Marius was not adopted, he only married a women from the gens Iulia (Caesar's aunt) which was an ancient family but not rich neither infliential at that time.
Actually many wealth landowners would adopt a son as a heir. This sometimes happened when there was no biological son, but it did happen sometimes even when there was one. Often times this new son would marry a daughter. So while these specific Antonine Emperors might have had a lucky accident, if they adopt a son while having a biological one, the Romans wouldn't have batted an eyes. Adopting was a very public affair. No Roman besides Mark Anthony doubted Augustus was Caesar's son and heir after his adoption.
@@andrelegeant88 Yes, with Augustus taking it to a different level, in hopes of securing stability with the succession for his Principate system. Galba was kind of a more direct precursor to the "adoption system" of the "Five Good Emperors," but his adoption of Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus paradoxically created more instability and risk for him.
Depends on what you mean by recover.
The crisis of the third century absolutely destroyed the Roman political system of the principate. Major cities and regional power structures got dismantled by Aurelian, Diocletian expanded the bureaucracy so that it was run by a professional civil service, Constantine (or maybe Diocletian, The reforms bleed into eachother) reformed the Roman military in a way that was markedly alien from the civilian-military overlap of the principate model, And the resulting empire was not an Italian empire based in rome, But one large uniform machine ruled by a quasi divine emperor. Rome was not the capital anymore , Rome was all the land between Scotland and Sudan, and the lives of all its citizens were heavily controlled. The Roman Empire never recovered in the sense that things would never be the same again after the crisis of the third century.
However, In terms of functionality and capability. The period between Diocletians reforms and Valens loss at Adrianople was the Roman Empire at its most powerful. It could not only field more soldiers in numbers that were unthesible during the principate. But the states centralized bureaucracy was able to extract unforeseen amounts of material wealth from its own citizenry and logistically support its armies on a near industrial scale. It’s estimated that single campaigns under Constantius II were logistically supported by millions of bushels of Wheat. And what’s more? The economy of the Roman state REBOUNDS. Sure, Inflation was still an unaddressed problem in rome, But coin debasement was being dealt with by the invention of the Solidus and tighter imperial control on Mints, and in the meantime, The “in kind” taxation ensured that the state had all the material wealth it needed to stay afloat and maintain its armies
We are now learning to better appreciate how powerful rome was after the third century, just because it slowed down on conquests and took a more defensively minded geo strategic stance does not mean that the Roman state was not in a golden age during the reign of constantine. If anything, Rome’s true decline was the unprecedented death of Theodosius and the ascendancy of his sons to the purple
This is what I was thinking the whole video thank you for typing it out!
The Western Empire had such a long and difficult to defend border, it was nearly impossible to defend with the limited amount of troops they were left with. Romans didn't want to fight for the army either. Basically the empire had doomed itself via its own internal divisions and the weakening of its economy.
That's also because the did do like America has done scaled back the size of it's military
If the Romans had allowed their villagers to arm themselves, it all wouldve been different. They had no levy system!
@@josephperkins4857 it is also similar to Charles V of Habsburg's reign during the Great Reformation, like how the Crisis of the Third Century started the rapid decline of Rome. The Holy Roman Empire couldn't maintain its long-term stability amid internal schisms and mismanagement, alongside other Protestant countries taking advantage of the vulnerable situation. Like the Germanic tribes against the Western Roman Empire, the French took the opportunity to destroy the Habsburgs
The HRE had to scale back a lot of critical militaries and other resources while facing high inflation in Spain, which the Spanish Empire did encompass the New World. While people continue this parallel between Rome and the USA, I think the United States is a multi-phasive decentralized Holy Roman Empire that presents various similar phases(or cycles) that once previously plagued Ancient Rome, the Byzantines, and later the Golden Empire.
The Eastern Empire hard arguably the same problem too, and it brunt the first wave of barbarian invasions, with the Goths killing the Eastern Emperor, rampaging through the Balkans and sacking Athens. They also suffered the brunt of the Hun raids before Attila and had to deal with a settled sophisticated empire in the Sassanids.
In my view there are two reasons the West fell over the East.
1) There was far more civil wars and infighting. In the East the usurpation of Zeno was the only one for awhile, whereas in the West you had Majorian getting executed by his Magister Militum, then the empire ending with 3 coups in a row. This lack of internal stability left the empire vulnerable.
2) Probably even more important, what territory was lost/raided. The East had Egypt which was able to prop up its cities by feeding them, and which was relatively free from barbarian raids. The West however lost its equivalent in North Africa. The Vandals journey ending in Carthage put Rome at the mercy of the Vandals who would sack Rome in the 440's. Losing some territory in Gaul to the Visigoths and in Hispania to the Suebi was bad, but not crippling as losing North Africa was.
Nah bro I did save western Rome in Attila total war and classic barbarian total war
Rather than arguing that there was 'damage done' I'd argue that systems changed. I'd guess it was initially horsebreeding. Larger and stronger horses made it possible to use more armor resulting in stronger and better saddles as well as stirrups. This changed the decisive arm of war from being disiplined infantry (the base of the roman army since the Marian reforms) to the decisive arm being heavy cavalry. This requires a fundamental change in how you pay for your army. Your warriors now need land to keep their horses and they can't leave that land for long. This changes the army into one of militia and foederati along the frontiers with field armies tied to that agricultural core. If you can't project power into any agricultural core region you will lose that area permanently.
All the opposite: cavalry made the Roman army much more mobile (horses can pasture in almost any lands, they are the essence of nomadism, not sedentarianism). However elite units tending to "knights" also made it harder to train and equip, making those professionals essential (units you wouldn't want to lose, not recoverable by mere draft as in the early days of Rome), costly and potentially dangerous for the rulers.
8:55 That actually isn't unusual. In fact it's relatively recently where the bulk of government spending shifted away from the military, mainly since the late 1800's. For most of the history of administrative states, the vast majority of revenue went to the military. 70% is likely one of the lower percentages in the grand scheme of things.
Bro At start Rome had nearly no taxes at all like 0.1% yearly and similar for army doubles at time of war
Also keep in mind at start only elites were taxed
and they ended with huge welfare unknown horde of poor in Rome and taxed farmers to death forcing them to leave land and become the mob with free lunch
I quite liked this video, particularly your point about the empire relying too much on a single line of defence and the defence in-depth system being too easily disrupted by civil war. But you made several glaring errors about the economy. Firstly, every pre-industrial government spent the vast majority of their annual revenue on military spending.
Secondly, while the silver currency (the antoninianus) did get debased into nothing, you neglected to mention anything about the gold solidus and even said it was debased as well (which it was not). The Roman Empire in the fourth to eighth centuries operated using a gold-copper system with there being three gold denominations, the solidus, semisis and tremisis and several copper denominations. The copper, which in the fourth and fifth centuries had a smaller silver content, did eventually get debased during the fifth century. However, especially in the east the economy was growing with vast swathes of land being brought under cultivation and the desperate need for a small denomination coin saw Anastasius I introduce the follis (40 nummi). So rather than a slow decline it was more fits and starts before eventually getting the system right in the late fifth century. There is also no mention about how the government mitigated the need for money to pay armies by paying for their equipment in kind, which was used from Diocletian to Anastasius I.
Kudos to Constantine and Anastasius.
Damn, Majorian just got schooled!
His point about Rome having a single line of defense is also not entirely correct because, at least on the eastern side of Italia, Rome did have a secondary line of defense called Claustra Alpium Iuliarum. It was a series of towers, walls and interconnected fortresses stretching from the seaport town of Tarsatica on the Adriatic (nowadays Rijeka in Croatia - you can still see the remnants of the Roman Principium in the Old Town) to roughly Emona (Ljubljana) and then to Forum Iulii (Cividale) in the Julian Alps.
No mention of Septimius Severus and Caracalla who increased the Legionnairs' pay by 150% (in some steps) ? In my opinion it was this enourmous rise of expenditure at the beginning of the third century wich really got the inflation going.
Afterward, Diocletian did the same thing, about 300 A.D., only making the problem worse. The Roman Government never figured out the basic principle that "The more money you make from nothing, the more inflation will rise to compensate."
Creating money from nothing (expansion of currency supply) IS the inflation. The rising prices are only effect of the inflation (shortages are another), not inflation itself.
@@pawemarsza9515 sounds like the last couple of years tbh
Those are just symptomps, the real problem was that the mines had been exhausted but the oligarchic thirst for exotic Asian produce was never quenched (or even considered). Where did all the silver and gold go? It did not vanish inside the Roman Empire because people were throwing it into the Mediterranean, nope: it was exported to Asia in exchange of perishable luxuries such as cinnamom or silk. Otherwise inflation would have been much much slower, all or most of the silver would have been recovered via taxes or would otherwise be circulating inside the Empire. It was the silver drain what caused it, not anecdotal pay rises.
@@LuisAldamiz it seems Rome conquered in wrong direction haha
I noticed that you did not mention Emperor Serverus and his children, who I blame for the spiral of the empire, by doubling the pay of the solders and starting the debasement, then telling his kids to only care about the army and forget the senate. Who also doubled their pay and debased the currency to pay them, starting a chain reaction of emperors doing this over and over after being acclaimed emperor.
Alexander severus was the last hope
I keep saying, if Rome had set up an official, codified, system of power transference instead of always depending on who had the biggest army, it might have survived.
It did have one during the early to mid Republican period, but the Republican system didn't adapt enough to face the challenges of empire.
What a terrific video. Rome wasn't monolithic, there many different eras and systems. It's popular to try to find simple explanations for complex issues but clearly the fall of Rome came in many waves for multiple reasons.
You forgot the main problem: not so much the mines' exhaustion but the "silver drain" to India and other parts of Asia, the unending Euro-Mediterranean oligarchic thirst for absolutely unnecessary luxuries like cinnamom or silk. That oligarchic thirst for exotic luxuries did not only doom Rome but also raised Europe again 1000 years later, crazy!
Otherwise a much needed documentary: Diocletian is often praised as savior... but he only kickstarted the Dark Ages an can even be considered a quasi-barbarian himself (and his orientalizing reforms): he hated Rome so much that he almost died upon visintng the city.
he didnt forget and frankly by that time the thirst for those products had diminished.
What
It would be interesting to contrast the rise in labor costs following the Black Death with the labor situation that developed following the Plague of Cyprian.
It's almost impossible to gauge. Historians probably overrate the issue of labor costs after the Black Death, just as they hype the death toll (the 1/3 figure many claim only documented in one French town, all the rest are much lower). While it would have an effect, especially as secondary waves affected mostly the less immunized youth, IMO the result has more to do with peasant urprisings and need of military manpower (peasants also fought wars, not just knights) than a mere lack of manpower. Even the increase in trade influenced that, much as today: those producers with lower costs (growingly in Eastern Europe at least for grain) displaced others with higher costs, which focused on producing other stuff like textile manufactures (Italy and Flanders notably, also Catalonia) wine or sugar (luxury goods only grown in certain areas) or even wool (a low workforce produce favored in Spain and England).
The population never recovered from the 3rd century crisis, or even from the mini crisis during the reign of Marcus A, lower population means less taxes and greater demand of the army pay on the smaller budget, which was always going to lead to difficulty
wasn't their taxing system very limited?
maybe they taxed business to death and then no matter how big population it becomes so unproductive its useless for getting any revenue
10:08 I would also point out that the quality of citizen Legionaires had been way down for awhile. Prior to the Foederati System, the Auxilia not only made up the majority of the military, they were also more effective on the battlefield and became more prestigious.
to get these strong guys you need these strong guys...
they run out of strong mountainers eventually
Looks like the same thing is happening today! We really haven't learned a damn thing since then!
Biden regime and the Woke Demoncrats have broken everything.
Yes, the cycle of creation - prosperity - stagnation - decline - collapse repeats itself, and will wipe out our current civilization too, especially if we continue hurtling on this path of unsustainable excess and degeneracy
Exactly what I was thinking as I listened to this video. When will we ever learn and when will those in power have a more realistic view of our Nation (or any Nation) at this moment in time? We have cultural civil war ongoing right now with ideological and cult wars on Capitol Hill. There are serious warning signs including income inequality, a flawed justice system biased against the poor and we have been off of the gold standard since the early 1970s. In addition, we are allowing our Nation to be bankrupted by hordes of people seeking asylum. The picture isn't pretty.
During the Crisis of the 3rd Century, the Roman Empire "Exploded" from within (due to civil wars), and then about 100-150 years later it "Imploded" (due to the Barbarian invasions), and then finally just collapsed under its own weight (and inability to defend or support its self).
They believed so much about their eternity, that they never understood the civil wars were the big fail about their empire.
Not even had some loyalty to the state or the sytem itself.
Had Aurelian not been murdered then I feel Rome would have experienced another golden era
I absolutely agree. He tolerated the growing Christian religion versus Diocletian, who sought to continue to crush the ideology in most of the Roman Empire. While the radical elements were understandable to limit their influence, his policies still antagonized the broader Christian sect, and his Tetrarchy only reduce the moral authority that Rome had over various regions of the Empire.
@@SolidAvenger1290 He was also in a similar situation to Nerva as he was quite old and didn't have any male heir so it's likely he'd have adopted somebody which could have bought in another era of good emperors chosen through adoption
@@SolidAvenger1290 the problem was plebs who not felt Roman not Christianity
but it so happens Christianity was popular in the plebs
previous Roman plebs was an elite and participated in ruling with smart representation
then it become communist pathology
and Romans fed this cancer until it outgrew them
He was too old,in my mind
I beleve that the crises of 4th century destroyed Empire: civil ware of Constantine`s sons mainly. Batle of Mursa: AD 361. -60.000 dead; battle of Chryspolis AD 324 - 85.000 dead; battle of Cibalae 316 AD - 25.000 dead; battle of Frigidus 394 AD 20.000 dead. It also wrottened the character of population in general.
Was there really an "adoption system" in the 2nd century? Or was it simply that the first 3 emperors had no kids and thus chose their own successors? And the first emperor with a son abandoned this "system".
It was the second thing.
Nerva chose Trajan because he was extremely popular between the soldiers and he needed the army's support.
Hadrian was the closest male relative to Trajan and we don't know if it was Trajan's choice in his last breath or his widow's decission.
Aurelius was a distant relative of Trajan and Hadrian by female lineage, and Hadrian imposed him and Verus as heirs to Antoninus.
The only time one emperor select "the best man" was when Hadrian adopted Antoninus and even then it was only because Aurelius was too young.
Yes. The research for this is well done
I appreciate your passion and your videos very much. Thank you for sharing. My passion for the roman empire has grown so much since I found your channel. I think this is going to become a life long fascination.
Caracalla gave every free inhabitant of the Roman Empire the Roman citizenship with his Constitutio Antoniniana in 212, independent of ethnicity, religion, wealth or anything. This meant free movement within the empire, the right to settle down wherever they wanted, pariticipation in politics, the right to join the civil service, equality before the law, opening career paths to anyone independent of ancestry, etc.
Diocletian turned the rural population back into some kind of serfs, forcing them to stay where they were born, withdrawing the right of free movement, even forcing the young generation to take the same jobs as their fathers - the son of a carpenter becoming carpenter again, the son of a farm hand staying a farm hand, etc. So he basically created again a class of a relatively unfree lower class. The laws of Diocletian stabilized the Empire in the short run, but he lay the foundation for medieval feudalism and soon the ruling upper class would be replaced by military leaders and later barbarian invaders, while the lower class stayed in the unprivileged status that he created.
The other crisis of the 3rd century to Roman historian's was the death of Cassius Dio. Though Herodian does help fill holes and small period after.
Great analysis by Maiorianus! Congrats! I would like to put an emphasis to one of the mentioned problems for the Roman state in the III century - the lack of Roman recruits which caused the Barbarization of the Army. As Maiorianus said in the video, the currency crisis was the most significant problem for the Roman military along with the loss of Roman life during the plague and the bloody civil wars and barbarian incursions. I would like to point out another important problem for the Roman military recruitment system - the existence of the Casta system on first place and its eventual abolishment after a reality check in the borderlands in connection with the closed nature of the Legion as an institution.
I will try to keep it short as a comment should be:
1. Casta social system required for a new recruit to be a Roman citizen both from his father and his mother side. This rule caused no problems in the early centuries of Rome when the legions were stationed mostly in Italy or close to home in Spain, Septimania or Greece and the Balkans. However, after the conquest of Gaul and the need of constant legionary stations along the Rhine for defensive purposes and the slow Romanization along this river, mainly because of security reasons and the exhaustion of the colonization pool (there were to many good places open for colonization and Rhine was not one of them) led to extraordinary levels of men born to Roman legionary fathers and non-Roman mothers. This made these men unsuited for the Roman legions even if their fathers served almost for life. This connects to the second problem:
2. The men in the legion were the only state servants paid by the state in gold outside of the city of Rome. Moreover, after the successful completion of the long military service the legionaries received large land grants in the provinces outside Italy (in most cases in the same region where their legion was based). This initially makes the service in the legion one of the best opportunities for the Plebs in Italy to migrate and eventually become rich. And because the service was well paid every legionary tried to put one of his sons in his place after retirement (this was the best option they knew for being successful). That's why in the early Roman centuries after the initial recruitment of a legion it was almost unheard of searching for new recruits outside of the legionary human pool except of rare occasions of large legionary losses. However, as already mentioned in 1 the situation on the Rhine was different and most of these legionary sons were not able to qualified for a place of a legionary. The only option for them was the much worse paid Auxilia where at least they were allowed to practice the profession of their fathers (maybe the only thing they were prepared for in their family). This system fraud caused a huge problem with the numbers of the Auxilia to rival the number of the Legions and even to surpass them in Rhine provinces. Emperor Caracala's fix for this problem was to give to this new potentially rebellious Casta full Roman citizen rights in the fashion of Romulus himself. However, the already mentioned currency crisis and the higher numbers of military losses overshadowed this act. Another factor was the actual territorial loss after the formation of the so called Gallic Empire. These legionaries became the core of the new "Gallic" forces which even pacified were not so keen to come back for service to the central government. Another important setback was the evacuation of Dacia which was heavily Romanized with large Roman legionary basis and vast gold and silver production. In this situation it is not a surprise that most of the new legionary recruits came from Dacia Aureliana and Pannonia and not from Italy or Spain. The men in Dacia Aureliana and Pannonia were one of the best preserved part of the legionary pool and lived close to the border unlike the Romans back in Italy, Greece and Spain. The insufficient numbers and the higher need of troops led to the process of Barbarization...
The Roman history is a dance between the Necessity and the Desire just like the life is...
It's less Rome recovered from the 3rd Century, it's more it just stopped getting appreciably worse and started to recover.
Amazing video, one of your best and that says something!
I know we can see the decay of the romans through their artworks and craftsmanship, as you also explored on another video. The hard to believe frescoes of Pompeii and Herculaneum were a thing of the past already in the 300s AD
Aurelian be like: we do a little restoration 🌝
Brilliant ! This is the first time Someone pointed out not having a second 😢line of defense 😮
The third reason was never solved even towards the fall of Constantinople. It explained how the East Roman (Byzantine) empire had too many civil wars that outsiders from the Crusaders to the Ottomans exploited.
The Roman Empire's greatest weakness was the same as all Civilizations... humans.
Actually... oligarchs.
Rome she will forever be missed but never forgotten.
When talking about history people too often focus on lines on the map or army sizes, rather than things like population (both in terms of size and structure), political and administrative systems, state of the economy and infrastructure etc. Take "reunited" Rome at the end of Justinian's reign. On the surface it looked great, with the reconquest of rich and prestigious provinces (Africa and Italy respectively). Even on a systemic level Justinian managed to push through some much needed legal and tax reforms. But with population decimated by wars and the plague and imperial coffers largely depleted, the Empire was in fact much weaker than it appeared.
Regarding the Republic being unstable, I think this statement needs a caveat. It only became unstable as the "middle class" of free citizen-farmers began to shrink, as more and more wealth was accumulated by the super-rich landowners. The republican system was in fact quite stable, as long as the societal structure present at its inception held on.
So the system worked, except when it didn't because it couldn't adapt to change?
@@HDreamer I don't think *any* democratic/republican system can survive a situation, when the society becomes a de facto oligarchy. The only two ways it can adapt is either to introduce measures that would reduce wealth inequality, thus remaining a republic, or transition into a dictatorship.
@@Qba86 Sure, though I am pretty sure that Rome was an Oligarchy from the start, aka after they chased out the Kings.
@@HDreamer To some extent, sure. Still, there is a difference between a situation where you have a privileged elite wielding a disproportionate amount of power, but balanced by a sizable "middle class" that also has rights and agency within the political system (early Roman Republic), and a situation where the elite has accumulated virtually all the power and wealth, while almost everybody else is living off scraps (late Republic). In the latter situation, you won't find many people willing to stick out their necks in defense of status quo.
As always, an excellent video -- and a useful warning for us today.
Here's something I just discoverd and am sharing around to the history buffs I know:
Around the 17min mark of Dragon Ball Episode 44 (not Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball) the characters are hanging out at a sculpture garden and in that sculpture garden is a pink replica of the "Serpent Column" !!O_O!!
Good video. This confirms some ideas I'd had about the empire from before and after the 3rd Century Crisis.
Love your work on late Roman history Maiorianus! 😎😉
We need more vids about, did Rome's trade with India actually destroy the empire's economy?
Because Rome's desires for silks, spices and other previous goods were traded mostly with their own gold & silver coinage and bullion to India, that eventfully dried up over time in just a few centuries since the days of the republic = till the crisis of the 3rd century with the inflations & debasing of their coins... due to shortages, and the mines running dry.
That situation was never fixed till the Eastern Roman Empire's time under Justinian and after, due to diplomacy in exchange deals between them made to fix it in negotiations... and monks stealing silk worms from China in making their own industry of it all back home in the empire in Asia minor.
Please have a look on that research and see if it's a great topic to make for a vid next in the upcoming weeks or months. 👌
Good point Peter,, but in my opinion it was the lack and more modern industrial innovation that was the issue,,, if they could have produce goods that other cultures and tribes wanted instead of sending just gold to trade it would not have been so harmful. Just thinking about the fall ,,,,maybe they ddid not actually "Fall" but went bankrupt... Same thing really
@@lipsee100 Maybe they did, maybe the Romans did ask India, it's rulers and officials & people what they would like in products to buy, need or want instead in other bits with lists to show or goods they brought with them from the empire & Egypt all over to East Asia onboard with them on their ships to see... but the rulers may've rejected them all mostly except gold & silver demands for their palaces they filled them all with & their temples there.
Everything in gold & silver from over there in India mostly came from Rome in trade over the many centuries, Persia & others, although they did have their own mines here & there... the trade from all other nations they made deals with brought it in the majority.
So all of that gold & silver mostly in India was stolen by them from Rome & others by India in unfair trade agreements, and then Britain stole it mostly all right back almost 2 millennia later... how ironic the tables turn.
Already gone now and decentralized across the world... but throughout human history = 250,000 plus to 1 million plus tons of gold has been mined up until now... with much more beneath the earth's deep crust that can't all be mined.
2500 to 3650 tons of gold mined worldwide per year... silver about 25,000 to 26,000 tons a year too.
As I said earlier, Eastern Rome did negotiate new deals with India to ease the burden and stole some silk worm eggs from China to help out even more with their own industry back home in Asia minor... but by then, the damage was all but done for the main empire united... and under Justinian's rule till later in centuries onwards.
If only they all realized this much sooner = 6 centuries sooner under Julius Caesar... they could've saved so much money in loss of gold & silver. 😅
Yes! You're putting the finger on what really matters the most: the silver drain!
There would not have been that much of a devaluatio problem if the silver stayed in the Empire, which it mostly did except for that unplugged drain hole that the Ptolemaids opened in the Red Sea and Rome didn't even pay attention to, as it payed huge taxes.
This issue of endless luxury demand for Asian goods has driven not just Roman collapse but also later European rise from the ashes (until now, when we're becoming again consumers that produce nothing but overrated currency).
As major gold and silver mines in Europe after Roman empire were in Cezhia and Slovakia, why Roman never really want to conquer there although it is right next to the border of empire itself?
I expect because it would've been very hard to hold those lands in the face of Germanic, Hunnic and Slavic invasions from every direction
So very informative and interesting. As expected. Thank you all.
I like your chanal A LOT, I hope to be able to support you soon! Just keep up the good work!
It certainly changed. But then again, the Empire at its full power was probably never that sustainable anyway. Its amazing it lasted as long as it did..
I'd also add to this that the reforms of Diocletian were, in the long run, counterproductive. They brought temporary stability in the economy at the expense of permanent stagnation.
Wow! The crisis of the third century was part of the fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Nebachadnezzer's dream!
Maiorianus, I have to say that your second point at 13:13 that the Romans never build a second line of defense is incorrect. I'm surprised that you never heard about the Claustra Alpium Iuliarium which was the last line of defense before entering Italy from the East. It consisted of towers, walls and interconnected fortresses stretching from the seaport town of Tarsatica on the Adriatic (nowaday Rijeka in Croatia - you can still see the remnants of the Roman Principium in the Old Town) to roughly Emona (Ljubljana) and then to Forum Iulii (Cividale) in the Julian Alps.
The seeds of the fall are planted during the ascent. Institutions that worked under early conditions tend not to work when conditions change. The fact that the Roman Empire lasted so long is testament to the adaptability of the Romans. Just look at the evolution of the military. Lacking spectacular technological breakthroughs, the Roman military was still able to adapt to changing military and economic conditions. But nothing is durable forever.
Sometimes the cure also caused further issues, Diocletian’s draconian tax reforms increased revenue to sustain a larger army, but also made society much more repressive and less energetic
Dio basically kickstarted the Dark Ages: it was worse than just disent what he caused.
@@LuisAldamiz”Dark ages” is very outdated my guy lol
@@jabronisauce6833 - The joke is on you: Dark Ages is a very valid term, in fact many parts of the Western Roman Empire went back to full prehistorical or proto-historical levels in terms of documentation (zero), while others have some texts but not many. Compare that to the quite common literacy in the Roman Empire, at least before the Constantinian decision to enslave everybody in terms of colonatum (what we would later call serfdom) and devastate the economy with idiotic ultra-austericide.
@@LuisAldamizbut what really could had they had done? If only if they had chinese inventions ,they could had atleast had Better agricoltural productions, and could had Exchange silver coins with more kind of annona(like silk in han empire)or they should had adopted some like the theme sistems
@@alessandrogini5283 - You're probably right about the Chinese developments such as the heavy plough, at least for Atlantic Europe (Gaul, Britain and remote parts of Spain in the case of the Roman Empire), however the heavy plough was useless or even counter-productive for the thin Mediterranean soils, so what happened eventually anyhow was that the economic and thus political center moved towards Belgium and nearby areas... but that was already well into the Middle Ages.
What could Rome have done in or after (or even before) the 3rd century crisis? Maybe cut the luxury demand, "degrowth" to a sustainable economy and stop importing silly stuff from Asia (silk and spices essentially). We can call this the Ptolemaic Trap or maybe even the Kleopatra Trap, as she was the one who last ruled Egypt before the Romans and is more iconic(I don't think it has a name... until now, it's the Luxury Demand Trap in any case): Ptolemy and successors, as rulers of Egypt, opened a trade route to India, from where luxuries were imported for the Hellenistic aristocracy and then the Roman one. After the last common sense in Rome pretty much vanished with the death of Augustus (the last one to understand that Germany was more important than Persia even if poorer not fitting the Alexandrine quasi-mythological theme of "marching to the East", of "conquering Asia"), Rome was obsessed with Asia and totally gave up its wealth in silver and gold to buy their pointless merchandise. In a sense, Rome willingly became a colony of India (and China-Persia via the first Silk Road), just as later semi-colonial princes of Africa and elsewhere sold everything, including their people, for trifles.
Yes, spices and silk are trifles, yet they drove Roman and European history for centuries because of the "gluttony" of our posh rulers. They ruined Rome and, a thousand years later, they drove European imperialism, briefly giving Europe the success denied since the Roman decline... and quite ironically turning those Asian trifles into less valuable stuff and finally making Europe able to export something that was produced by hard work and ingenuity: industrial products.
Maybe the Romans could have tried to industrialize? They knew a lot of stuff later used for industrialization like the principle of the steam engine and clockwork engineering. But the Roman aristocracy were not into that, they were into war and poshness, working was perceived as lesser and they felt they had no need to replace slave labor for any sort of mechanization (with exceptions, early Rome was excellent at engineering but then they did not build on that, they mostly just were content to stagnate).
In a sense this is the same that happened to China when the Tang burned the Canton merchant fleet out of arrogance and conservatism, allowing Europeans to become strong in their backyard and eventually pose an existential threat to China, which was almost partitioned into many colonial fragments a century-plus ago. In a sense it is the same that happened to the Muslim World as Caliphs became growingly conservative and hyper-religious, losing contact with reality and allowing the now dynamic, rationalist and hyper-competitive Europeans to get the upper hand. Unlike the trading powers of Greece and Phoenicia, Rome lacked curiosity, they were very good at war and little more, they won so much and that made their oligarchs so mindbogglingly mega-rich, that they could not really do anything else but decay by selling out the family jewels in exchange of some cinamon flavor.
Love your channel
You have researched well
great video!!!! But what is that annoying high pitch bleep? is is your watch or something?
Its a bit off topic, but perhaps relevant to ask if a comparison can be made, where in the Roman Republic/Empire would you say the United States is today? If America has transitioned to an 'empire', what year/events would support that assessment? Perhaps the administration of Theodore Roosevelt or William Howard Taft were the last presidents of the American republic? I don't know the answer and am interested in what the viewers and the channel say. Thanks for all the great videos - very thought provoking and great to set the record straight on actual history vs what have been told for centuries.
Fantastic video, as always. Out of curiosity, how would you have "fixed" the Roman succession issue?
08:08: Gold mines were abandoned... It is a strange assumption. Gold means gold! Mining gold is the first thing to do for every nation. Much better to mine gold than to work for it, isn`t it?.. One can miss any activities - farming, handycraft, construction, - but not gold mining! Yet we see the evidences of this huge production drop... I just think there are some more serious apocalyptical reasons for that rather than people just being lazy.
Though the effects of the third century crisis were among the causes of the fall of the imperial western state, i think the cost of the war agains Attila was more important. While the Eastern Romans managed to stop the raids in the Balkans and paid the huns to withdraw, the Western Romans did not have resources, armies and the competition between both eastern and western courts and magister militums, explains the collapse of western provincies in the V century.
Could you maybe do some videos on how Nicomedia (& other cities) used to look like? Most of it cannot be dug up because of the modern city, but I suppose some reference is given in literary texts
Roman history after 117: it all goes down hill from here on.
For me 1180 was the true tipping point.
@@septimiusseverus343 the crusaders in 1200: well, that's a lot of damage! , HOW ABOUT A LITTLE MORE
180 for me.
For me it's after the death of either constantine the great or at the death of julian the apostate
The division in 395 was the first nail in the coffin.
1. century BC that was caused Civil wars was a warning. Changing from free owner to paid army that answers to private generals and senators that command and pay soldiers was the biggest problem. Without a private army/militia, Rome could be a Republic. When a private person in one way or another finances an army/militia it is a matter of time when he/she will get the upper hand and overthrow the government.
Interesantno
Mozda
Could you talk about Lusitânia? It will be very nice to know something about it!
I must say I never particularly saw any difference between the "3rd century crisis" and the many other periods from the time of Marius onwards, when Roman & Byzantine Generals used their armies to wage civil war.
Definitely agree with the civil war thing. If you played Crusader Kings, you know how ass a civil war is when you’re in the middle of something
Just a Quick question, why did the legions stop wearing Amor? I know its because of the costs, but would a smaler but better secured army not be more efficient?
The question isnt appropriate to the topic being presented. if its a strictly 1 to 1 value, then the answer is an obvious YES because it survived the crisis stronger is some ways. But obviously nobody would ever say that the empire after the crisis remained the same as the empire before, major changes were made to deal with the crisis.
If Marcus Aurelius had no heir, the world today would be very different. Just one man changed history for thousands of years.
No, it wouldn't. Systemic crises don't depend on single events, these may be triggers but never causes.
Nah the crisis was already slowly starting while he was alive
Yes & No. The events after "The Crisis of the Third Century" was only a brief respite/postponement of the broader issues plaguing the Roman Empire. Aurelian, alongside his fellow student Emperor Probus, was likely the best chance that the Empire could have another Golden Age after the crisis, but their deaths were another example of Rome's corruption & jealousy to destroy the greatness of men who both saved the Empire
Although Emperor Diocletian brought the Roman Empire back from the brink after the battle of Margus, it still brought mixed results for the Romans in the long run. Part tyrant, part organizational genius, Diocletian remains an influential and controversial figure in history, similar to Emperor Justinian.
The success of Diocletian's Tetrarchy was very mixed. The smooth succession he had hoped for with his junior emperors did not last. King Charlemagne would indirectly repeat the same cycle after he died for the Holy Roman Empire with his successors in Francia.
Although the method he used for breaking provinces among multiple emperors would continue in various forms, the temptation for emperors to install their children as their co-rulers proved too great into upcoming decades up til the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 A.D and much later establishing the feudal power struggle through the Age of Charlemagne into almost the Late Middle Ages.
Diocletian's actions did stabilize the empire for a time, but his ruthlessness in Rome started the chain reaction that would see its own citizens (alongside the purge of Christians) create the schism that would create the division between Western & Eastern Empires.
With so much popcorn bshite on yidtube I really appreciate this channel some actual meat and potatoes for the mind and spirit, thank you and hail
If managing the frontiers with sufficient manpower was such a problem, then why didn't the Romans create wasteland buffer zones beyond the frontiers in, for example, Germania?
The plan of Augustus from what I recall was to extend conquest into Germania and until I believe the Elbe river. These proposed borders had the benefit of a sort of continual line of natural defences which combined with the Romans defences would've proved far more defenceable and manageable..
Unfortunately or fortunately (idk up to you) Germanicus was called back during his conquest and Marcus Aurleius died before he could finish his conquest so this plan never occured.
(Before someone says what about the Battle of Teutoborg, that just pissed the Romans off and they got more than ample revenge for it)
They actually did this for a time by periodically crossing over into Germania and razing tribal settlements. However, this activity was infrequent and sporadic. Clearing out lands tends to create unsettled areas that are quickly filled by new inhabitants. Over time, Romans at the borders developed economic and familiar relations with these tribes.
Being the Army more important than the State sealed the fate of Rome...
You never really recover from a major crisis… for example, Western Europe after WWII
Amazing video as usual
Marius vs Sulla
Catiline
Caesar vs the Senate
Octavian versus everyone
Year of the 4 Emperors
Year of the 5 Emperors
Year of the 6 Emperors
War between Diocletian's successors
War between Constantine's successors
Julian versus Constantius
The entire 5th Century
The entirety of Byzantine history
And that's just the civil wars, never mind the assassinations and palace coups.
Political instability was endemic in Roman politics and very far from confined to the 3rd Century.
All had its roots in the military reforms of Marius, which resulted in soldiers becoming loyal to their Generals/Officers rather than the state.
I wish we had a Google Earth style application where we can look around the earth but during the times of the Romans or different eras
I get why the Romans never have the orderly succession system because of their deep hatred toward monarchy. No, this is real. They proclaimed the Imperator office to be a republican one. And they do not wanted a system of kingship to be revived. And yes, I know that by the time of the Eastern Roman Empire, it's basically kingship in all but name. But formality is also important to the public. If the formal declaration of making the Empire a monarchy never happened, the peoples will still considered their country to be a republican country. As for the debasement of the currency, my solution to that point is to dissolve the majority of the military and then distribute the military assets to the provincial governors to use to defend the borders, which might lead to the new defense systems being developed in case the first line of defenses are breached. And this is coming from me, the guy who is not much of a fan of the Ruusan Reformation in Star Wars.
In Greek, the emperor is called Basileus, which simply means king in the classical era. The Mycenaean term was Anax, originally Wanax, but Alexander was termed Basileus. Let’s never forget that more people in the empire spoke Greek rather than Latin.
@@Joanna-il2ur I know that. But it's just that both titles sort of being used interchaneably. Sometimes, it's the Imperator. But sometimes, it's the Basileus.
@@lerneanlion By the time of the Later emperors, the concept of kingship was long gone. Diocletian brought back an equally dishonoured term: Dominus, Lord. True, Domitian had played around with it, but then he was assassinated. Generally the term had been Augustus. The title was little used by Augustus, who was usually called Caesar to his face. In any case, all emperors had usually been adults. The unexpected death of Theodosius in January 395 led to a new phenomenon: the Patrician, not always used but from Stilicho onwards, the emperor reigned and the Patrician ruled. Weak emperors were walked over by Patricians and others. That’s why nobody much noticed when Odoacer took over and then after him Theodoric. They were doing things nominally under the authority of a distant emperor in Constantinople.
In so far as Rome's Republican empire did under the Caesaro-Julian revolutionary empire, no; that is not at all, in fact, but broadly somewhat in Octavian metaphor. The Aurelian-Diocletian-Constantinian Dominate Empire certainly took up where the Augustan Principate Empire had failed, and indeed had fallen apart; yet it did not reconstruct the old empire but constructed a new form of an empire, still Roman in name (if increasingly less so in lived reality, not least in contrast to the Repubilc's empire).
;o)
My Take in order of importance from most to least:
1. Flawed succession system. Like most pre-modern states, Rome's succession system was unstable and expensive. Rule by patronage, ruinous donatives to the army, poor 'buy-in' from aristocrats, and a general lack of legitimacy plagued Rome from Casear onwards. I don't think we see improvement on this problem until the modern period with constitutions, judiciaries, elected legislators, voting, meritocratic hiring, and limits to executive powers.
2. Flawed geography. The area Rome inhabited did not lend itself to permanently secure borders. The absolute best geographic situation might be a large, remote, circular Island with crisscrossing rivers. Europe was far from that ideal with its flank exposed to a giant, remote plain, amoung other invasion routes from the east.
3. Flawed assimilation policies. Rome lacked the forsight to shape and maintain a broad, unified cultural narrative of what it ment to be a Roman. In our modern era, this is done through education and media. The closest Rome ever came to this was the policy of breaking up settler tribes, the use of state religious ceremonies, sponsored games, and manditory military service in the republic. All this was just not enough to instill a lasting, shared Roman identity in the way we see in the modern era.
4. Flawed economy. Rome's pre-industrial economy relied heavily on exploiting farm labor and natural resource extraction. Famines, plagues, a loss of agricultural lands or workers could all seriously weaken the state's ability to respond to a crisis. It didn't help that monetary policy was crude and relied on the judgment of autocrats and their personal interests. Add periods of slave injection into the system, along with periods of land consolidation and you have one heck of an unstable system.
In a nutshell, it's not the _absolute strength_ of an empire, it's the _relative strength compared to its neighbors_ which dtermines its power.
After crisis of the 3rd century, the Roman Empire was severely weakened relative to its potential adversaries. A Roman soldier looked almost identical to a "barbarian" warrior.
Add to this that 2/3 of the Roman economy was located in the Eastern part, the continuing of the economic decline in the 4th century, a downward trend in population etc. and you'll get to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
Discuss. A classic undergrad question,
I'd just like to say that the Holy Roman Empire had an orderly succession system. 15:20
Nope. As was so often the case - in the real turmoil that was the actual, lived life of Rome - a different (though contiguous or quirkily continuous) kind of 'Rome' emerged, filled up what space it could (make a living from), and carried on. The Rome of Aurelius, Diocletian and Constantine was not that of Antoninus Pius, Trajan or Vespasian .. any moreso than theirs was that of Claudius, Augustus or Caesar ... et al; but still and all, in a defiantly odd way, it was (almost despite itself).
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
Another thing to consider is the state of intellectual culture in the Empire at this time. And it is not good. Take philosophy -- can you really put Plotinus in the same league as greater men? Does anybody besides specialists actually read him -- or suffer from that lack? There is nothing in philosophy worth the consideration of the general reader between Marcus Aurelius and Boethius! Science? Roman technology was impressive (though from our modern hindsight grossly underused) but what we would call "basic research?" There is an increased tendency to rely on authority, and a disturbing trend of preferring wrong answers (like Ptolemy's estimate of the size of the earth, to say nothing of his heliocentric epicycles) over right ones (like Eratosthenes') Literature? There are the comedies of Menander (the school for Shakespeare and Molière) but other than that? The waspish and often unmanly epigrams of Martial, the worthy-of-a-modern-like-Genet Cena Trimalchionis. Is there anything first-rate from a heroic lifeview in Latin and her daughters between the Aeneid and the Chanson de Roland? Our age, suffering from its own disappearance of quality, should pay attention!
The adoption system would have worked if Marcus Aurelius’ General had accepted his offer of co-emperor instead of saying no and leaving the throne to Commodus🤮
If a son proved himself worthy an official adoption and renaming ceremony could have been performed but no, they relied on luck
Hey, you read my comment from a couple months ago.
Constantine saved the empire
8:48 "Rome is not a State with an Army, Rome is an Army with a State"
Thanks To This Vídeo.
Summary
4:37: 🏛 이 비디오는 로마 제국의 체계적인 결함에 대해 논의하며, 통화 불안과 군사 비용 등이 3세기 위기 이후에 완전히 해결되지 않았음을 다룹니다.
로마 제국의 전체 세수 수입의 최대 70%가 군대 유지에 사용되었습니다.
9:04: 🏛 로마 제국은 경제 불안정, 방어 전략의 결점, 그리고 계승 체계의 부재와 같은 다수의 도전에 직면했다.
넓은 국경에 비해 보조 방어선이 없고 도로망으로 침략이 쉬움
13:45: 🏛로마 제국은 일관된 계승 체제를 확립하는 데 어려움을 겪었으며 내전과 불안으로 이어졌습니다.
18:16: 🏛로마 제국은 훌륭한 황제를 배출한 행운으로 안정화되었지만 체계적 문제를 완전히 해결하지 못했습니다.
Anyone knows which movie was shown at 1:37?
As the video began, minor errors started piling up. Neither the "Gallic Empire", nor the "Palmyrene Empire" ever declared independence, Those were territories controlled by rebellious pretenders to the supreme power over the whole of the Roman lands. Both terms were later inventions by historians.
The Gallic Empire was more of a case of the Rhine Legions assuming independent command to secure Gaul from external threats without interference from the central government - Postumus at least showed no inclinations of marching on Rome. Now Zenobia's ambitions likely entailed getting Vaballathus recognized as co-Augustus with Aurelian at the very least.
@@Burgermeister1836 I wasn't arguing about the military aspect. I simply noted those weren't secession alluding to the Confederacy on the eve of the American Civil War.
Ah, yes, the 3rd Century Crisis. The original midlife crisis
Actually, the original midlife crisis was the Bronze Age collapse... they had many, many issues like Rome in similarities themselves. 😅
And the 5th century was the (Western) Romans on life support right before the plug gets pulled.
Is the temple of the thumbnail a real thing or more AI like?
Running out of gold/silver mines were not a problem (new world silver did not save the Spanish), losing the ability to tax at reasonable rates were. Entire regions were devastated, the tax collector was just as bad as the barbarians and often came with an army. The barbarians you could negotiate, hard to negotiate with the tax collector of a person who saw him as second only to God...
Killing blow came when people realized that "Rome" couldn't protect them and living under Romanized barbarians were not so bad.
If Alexander severus had Better military advisors,he could had prevented all this and melted Christianity with Roman religions
To help the Roman Empire they would have to make the office of Imperator perinate by-election, Crassus invades Dacia instead of Parthia and wins ensuring the survival of the first Triumvirate, the second Triumvirate conscience of Octavian, Mark Anthony, and Crassus son instead of Lepidus. Lastly, no stupid wars against Persia are not worth it Germania is the target prime.
Short answer: yes. Long answer: no. The Crisis of the Third Century set terrible precedents of civil war and self interested generals.
How could the Romans have created a better succession system, and enforced it?
They should've start focusing on farming economy, less recruitment time, investment more on rural development, support marrige between Romans and Other people, make philosophy as the state core beliefs, give up the Eastern or African lands, focus more on taming Eastern Europe and be humble.
The eastern and African lands were the most important provinces of the Empire. Giving them up would be a a blunder
I don't see Eastern Rome surviving as an empire till today as far as the era of Napoleon in the 1800s, it might have reformed into the Eastern Roman Republic = with a Roman style government with a senate & constitutional monarch = as the successor to the old roman republic in name... but it would mostly be a Greek speaking population with a Democratic republic style management post revolution period as it modernized into the industrial period... but far better off than the Ottomans, as they would be less brutal and far less expansionistic in landmass they would hold onto... only defensive & taking back lands that originally belonged to them around Asia Minor & the Balkans.
If Eastern Rome won against the Turks at Manzikert with a more organized force & got their sh&t together with stopping powerplays in leadership and having a full functional government after Basil the 2nd, and drove back all migrants after the Turks back into Persia... as well as negotiated with the Mongols later on in not invading in return for tribute & trade = then they would be no crusades, means no 4th one, means no Ottomans, meaning no age of discovery for another 2 centuries due to eastern trade still being open for trade, means that Eastern Rome could have survived till today's world, but better off than Greece is today... which means no Turkey... which means a more safer Western Asia & Southern Europe.
Eastern Rome would be defending itself during the imperial era of Europe in new struggles, and when WW1 & 2 comes about on the allied side but mostly armed neutral in defence... and cold war, they would be neutral again between the Allies and Russia = mostly staying out of both sides in return for just basic trade between them as mediators.
They would be their own great Greco Roman Christian culture with some forms of democracy & republic style governments, but not taking sides yet being a place where problems can be resolved by keeping the conflicts separate in that region from boiling over between the two great powers.
Eastern Rome would be a great regional power itself, but not like America or Russia... yet they would be great in their own right as one of the longest lasting civilization on earth = second & third behind China & India.
The middle east might be more stable between Armenia + Georgia, Syria + Iraq and the Levant while they kept their borders closed while doing some humanitarian aid now & again... and 9/11 properly would not have happened... and even if terrorism continued to exist as today, it would be far less than what we know.
Constantinople would be the capital of Greece today, not Athens... and both cities & others would be far better off than in our own timeline intact = a great tourist attraction all around indeed.
It will still have its own problems like all other nations today, but still better off than our own... how I would love to imagine visiting them now in that alternate time in their prime condition.
And the war in Ukraine might not have ever had happened, and even if it still did... Eastern Rome would still remain armed neutral, but be ready for anything that comes up, due to all the millennia of conflicts they've had all around in knowing what can happen in invasions.
Humanitarian aid, closed borders, neutrality and diplomacy... Eastern Rome might even make it so that both sides would admire Constantinople as a great trading partner in making the regions nearby more peaceful, but still neutral when keeping both sides from one another's necks... but they might not be a Euro or NATO member, but instead their own Eastern block of their former territories in alliances instead.
Made up of Southern Europe + Western Asia, the Levant and North Africa... as a third or fourth party that tries to stay out of it all in neutrality, but ready to defend should something happen.
Western Europe & America would admire them for being both the first Western civilization as Greece, but also the continued successor of Rome as a former empire in culture & more, but still have rocky relationships due to legitimacy issues in their jealousy toward the former empire.
While Russia themselves would admire them for their influence during the medieval ages in diplomacy + culture, history and trade... yet still be jealous themselves of their rich southern neighbour in denying them any expansion south into Europe and Asia with some few past conflicts before now.
Great thinking, but were are talking about the Romans. Civil wars are imminent throughout of their history regardless of a crisis, if not, in most cases, as an opportunity for rising pretenders who use the populace and the army to declare themselves as Emperors (e.g. Phocas) and kill their predecessors. Even after the disastrous battle at Manzikert, the palace court back in Constantinople fought against each other for succession, even when the Turks settled in Anatolia. Through luck and competence, the Komnenoi dynasty managed to secure the Empire's remain lands.
And even if they managed to repel foreign threats like the Turks, the Arabs, or the Mongolians, the Romans/Byzantines would still clash with the West. Even if it would rapidly industrialize, the Empire would come face to face with another foreign power if they share borders or spheres of influence. The "Great Game", for example was an early form of the Cold War between Great Britain and Imperial Russia over dominance in Central Asia. Fight for international prestige would still exist, whether the Empire would have been an autocratic conservative power or a liberal democratic parliament headed by the executive President. Much like how Britain and France fought against each other for most of their history, even if the regimes changed for time to time (until the creation of the German Empire), so would the Roman Empire would fight with an equal rising power (e.g. Tsardom of Rus, France, Britain, etc.) for dominance over their spheres of influence. In short, a geopolitical war (regardless of politics and ideologies) would still exist, and many minor powers who became involved in proxy wars with a great power will still pay the price for being exploited by their overlords.
Whether the Greco-Roman alternate world would appear less dangerous is unknown, but it would have have been an understatement to say that the Eastern Roman Empire would appear on the righteous side, at least on the political scale. Even today, most people accuse the West for various reasons (e.g. corruption, exploitation in the past, and even the install of dictatorial puppet governments over their homelands [especially in South America during the Cold War]). You might think that I condemn the E.R.E, but what I am trying to point out is that the Empire would still become a rogue menace in global politics if it doesn't align itself with the interests and politics of the great powers. Contemporary, if the Greco-Roman Empire (or a successor state) would be controlled in a similar fashion to modern Russia, they would be condemned internationally by the West.
@@angelb.823 If they remove the military from political positions and vice versa with the officials running the governments in keeping the two from one another's positions to seize or keep power in operating it all in dividing power with lesser responsibilities in basics to do only in government works of managing only without military experience... they will not be able to rebel or take the empire for itself as they would not know how to run it after doing so with extra warning.
Get rid of the nobility too, and recruit people of merit from all over the empire & later eastern republic, and it will give them more of a patriotic duty to remain loyal for only their limited terms in office and not for powerplay positions.
Eastern Rome might have its own flaws throughout history in bad rep, but who doesn't when it comes to human civilizations all around past & present times.
The western kingdoms have been at Eastern Rome's throat since the beginning in wanting legitimacy & prestige as successors to the main Roman empire after the medieval ages began, even though they aren't despite political marriages now & again... and Byzantium pretty much gave them the finger in denying it all... because they don't want usurping nations to their legacy in attempting take overs.
The East has also wanted to expand and gain more from the fallen empires of Byzantium and Persia after their final 26 year war together in one excuse after another... so Eastern Rome would have others eventfully to deal with... while also dealing with the upcoming Western powers during the 18th & 19th centuries banging at their doorsteps nearby for unfair trade deals in access to all resources there in the middle east.
Conflict between rival nations & political intrigue between all is unavoidable = as they all would want to keep a hold of or expand their influences & power in growth... Eastern Rome keeping to their Eastern regions with trade between nations all around to increase their economy leading to industrializing... while their enemies would demonize them while asserting their prideful self destructive causes that led to endless wars & WW1 and 2 in constant sufferings.
Byzantium would not be a rogue state in my opinion, but a free local state trying defend itself from trouble-making outsiders trying to exploit them in many fields.
Eastern Rome would be controlling areas around the southern Balkans with Greece & former Yugoslavia + possibly Crimea in southern Ukraine + Southern Italy & Sicily with their Greek populations if they can keep it secured from main Italy trying to take it for themselves in unification after the Normans are kicked out after that earlier major battle... + Anatolia, Armenia with Georgia and Syria as their East border regions... with the Levant would be one state of their own in this timeline and Egypt being their own as well with Liberia and West North Africa as part of the Southern Eastern block as allies of former territories.
Even if the Western allies condemn Eastern Rome for former atrocities = it would be nothing compared to China & Russia's own... and Byzantium is not going to listen to some political barbarians/pigs who are trying to play divide & conquer with them... as they know all too well themselves and can call them out on it as well with proof.
Being a smart power, and not a soft & weak one... not strong & stiff either... but perfectly balanced, as all things should be... it may falter now & again, but given the chance in luck = they can be something great for our modern times in the balance of power & stability.
Hashtag/#: Thanos did absolutely nothing wrong... his plan was just flawed in performance... humanity is the problem. 😅
Byzantium would still be far friendlier than China & Russia in trading with, but would not join either side for some BS cause that led to Ukraine... and they would most certainly keep troublemakers mostly out.
It would be the main hub for trade in Western Asia between the West leading further east... and with being the main great power in the region, it's better for none of them to play economic powerplays in getting sanctioned themselves backfiring between all.
Conflicts would most certainly break out in the past now & again between fighting Eastern nations & Western expansion in their regions during the 18th & 19th centuries, but it would be far better off in stability than the Ottomans... as Eastern Rome never had that type of manpower going beyond retaking more than their original power in territories = just defensive closest to home.
These days, I can see them using their mobile smaller modern armies & special forces in keeping Russia out of the middle east & parts of Eastern Europe if something were to happen... and even if 9/11 still happened = they would keep West Asia mostly peaceful & secure with their regional allies, while the western allies are further East instead... because Iraq would be smaller & weaker in this timeline and not much of a threat if Byzantium deals with them while keeping the peace & the west out in operations.
So America & its allies would focus mostly on Afghanistan without being stretched out too much in expense... while in this timeline, Isis would not exist or would be wiped out much sooner.
There would be some corporations between NATO & the Eastern Block of Eastern Rome... but they would be kept at arms length in limited activities under watch to stop any rogue elements from doing stupid things along the way in transporting them there in permissions traveling around the regions.
Byzantium would be a major power in the world, but mostly local while trading with the rest of world & having great tourism... the Eastern Roman block would mostly be operating in its original territories in Southern Europe, West Asia and North Africa for developing their economies and stabilities in those regions.
Once Ukraine breaks out, they would declare their armed neutrality and take up a million or so refugees at most in housing, while putting them to work in helping maintaining their stay & lives there till the war is over, while also negotiating with the West for transporting some to their countries for safety or aiding them in supplies... while still keeping their forces out to not provoke Russia.
They might even close their borders to keep them all out and transport them to other countries instead... after what happened in far back in memories with the Goths.
But tensions between Byzantium with the West & Russia would be balanced at best... but I think they would try to moderate between the two in preventing further conflict.
Eastern Rome would not be a threat to the West in any terms of military might, but they would not be on the west's complete side with their flawed ideologies, and they would most certainly would not side with Russia in this either = so it's better for them to be a third or forth party that can balance things out, or stay out of it all between them.
But Eastern Rome would most certainly win the department in culture, history + art, trade + tourism, and the legitimate areas as the continuation of the Roman empire, where the others are not.
It would be a economic powerhouse itself on par with parts of Euro, but not compared to China & the US... but third place at best, or one of the top ten at least.
Byzantium will always have its good & bad parts about itself as with any other civilization/nation... but I believe that it would be far better off than the Ottomans.
That's a great rant, but very wrong. The eastern romans were no more barbaric or bloodthirsty than the turks, they were just progressively more and more incompetent.
Your rant is filled with so many what-if's that it is pretty much in the realm of fantasy. I'll dismiss it as wishful thinking of a wistful romaboo. However, if I was less forgiving, it would seem you find middle easterners and central asians to be less civilized than europeans -- ie, racist. I know you aren't, but that is how your rant comes across as
This has far too much liberal idealism to ever be realistic. Orthodox Empires have historically remained autocratic to the end; the Enlightenment is a thoroughly post-Reformation Western idea.
Why didn't they simply transition to paper money?
Yes
I don't think Rome got lucky in the 3rd century with the Emperors it had, the system produced these leaders however by the fifth century this system was no longer the same as it had been 200 yrs earlier (keep in mind this is a long time) that produced the likes of Honorius and Valentinian III. You might also want to spend some more time on foreign influences e.g., Ricimer Magister militum (you've done several good videos on this topic) but also extend this treatment to the emperors, Constantine I and Theodosius I during the later stages of the Western Roman Empire, the imperial throne was occupied by rulers who did not necessarily share Roman heritage as well as the administrative system and its legions no longer run by Romans leading to the division of the empire, Rome no longer considered the capital as non-Romans no longer wanted to be in Rome - all this a warning to us today as mass-immigration overwhelms the Western Democracies
I have a question: do you have a video on emporer Julian Apostata? f not, he would make an interesting topic for a new video.
PS: Nice Video, i really enjoy your channel! Thanks!
No, it never recovered. The political structure of Rome was forever altered by the Crisis.