0:27 you mean like living in England today ? We actually romanticise our founders. We absolutely love Alfred and the Wessex House. And everything he’s done and represented amd represents for England
Anstatt videos über die spätrömische Ziwilisation oder über generell Rom zu machen, drehe eher videos über die sehr altrömische Ziwilisation, unzwar die sieben Könige während der Zeit vor der Republik! Das ist ein sehr interessantes und unerforschtes Niche! Instead of continuing to make material about late the roman civilization or going mainstream Roman, make videos about the very early roman civilization, ie the seven kings etc. This is a very interesting yet almost unreasearched topic which will make you stand out from the rest of the Rome geeks!
problem with audiences is that they expect the extraordinary out of the "heroes" or "main characters" without historical context. Hollywood does just that. ppl want to see FICTION on the big screen, not cruel real history. seeing late roman troops wearing smth less appealing than the famous Lorica Segmentata means wasted ticket money. the truth often is left for documentaries. these days, thx to Netflix, they too are romanticized and politicized. "Truth" being removed from the scope of the project.
I've heard it's cause they reuse that segmentata and it's simply like expensive to do it. With their budgets and being a nerd, I say that's a shltty excuse!
@@tannerdenny5430 the BBC depicted early republic and late roman armor properly in the rise and fall series. if they could not sure why big studios today can't.
"Imagine you live in a country which has existed for hundreds of, or even a thousand, years" Well, there are quite a few countries of which this is true. Doesn't require too much imagination.
@@BorzogoThe Arabs conquered Egypt over 13 and a half centuries ago. So even just the current version of the country of Egypt is well over a thousand years old.
It would be cool if they added the wolf onto the coat of arms of the City of Rome. Is it a bit cheesy? Sure I suppose, but it would be a nice heritage factor to add it regardless.
This is normal. Time to accept it. The western understanding of 'owning words' that has only existing for around 200 will end. It was a blip in history. Foreign concept to eastern cultures. Who can own words? No one. A perversion of property rights to include the owning of language and words.
To paraphrase a lecture I heard 6 years ago: Polybius began his theory of the "cycle of history" because he feared that Rome was simply repeating Greek culture on a larger scale, fearing Rome had no culture of its own. ... with hindsight he was incorrect
Greek states begin as despotic kingdoms giving way to vibrant democracies, producing politicians such as Alcibiades and Pericles, as well as great philosophers such as the platonists and pre-Socratics. Playwrights like Homer, the Thebans, and Aeschylus flourished. Then they heroically defended their culture against the Persians and succeeded, then they fought a massive civil war (Peloponnesian War) which destroyed that culture (to some extent), and gave way to a more despotic period (Hellenistic Age). Rome began as a despotic kingdom, giving way to a vibrant democracy which produced great politicians like Cincinnatus and Lucius Junius Brutus, great philosophers like Cicero and Philodemus, writers like Seneca and Virgil. Then, they fought a brutal war to preserve their culture against the Carthaginians and won. Then, they devolved into a period of massive civil wars, destroying their culture (to some extent), and giving way to a more despotic period (the Principate).
@@jackhallander6706 Pericles was an imperialist who dragged Athens into the pointless and destructive Peloponnesian wars -- which weakened the Greek city-states and gave more leeway to Persian influence -- and Alcibiades was a decadent man who played paramour with the State. Well, about the caliber of politician you should expect from bread and circus-run states that democracies are.
I always find it a very strange idea that the Roman Senate was this legendary force for centuries, its origins were the subject of heroic mythology. But it ended so obscure that we don't even know when it ended, who was part of it then, or even why it ended.
The answer lies in the question. The Senate's end is obscure because the Senate had become obscure and pointless, and not even suddenly but over several centuries. The Senate you're referring to as this thing of heroic legend (and later great political intrigue) hadn't been around for hundreds of years by the time the formal institution ceased to be. So in that regard, who would really care to document the exact details of its end--it didn't matter and hadn't matter for generations by the point it occurred.
Disclaimer: no working class Roman, be him or her (God forbid!) slave or serf or even free farmer or urban proletarian, was asked in this poll. However the Bagaudae speak volumes.
The use of "common era" seems really weird to me, even as an atheist - what's the point in renaming it, if it still begins with the birth of Christ? I'd understand using such a designation if it came as part of a new dating system and/or was derived from a different event... but it seems like an empty gesture if it's just used as a lazy renaming of the metric we've already got.
I think its a form of political correctness perhaps? I think this because i observed some people getting sensitive about this issue a lot for varying reasons.
@@paulmayson3129 As someone from a former communist state, BCE/CE seems like a terminology that the communists would've invented. It's a shame that western countries have adopted this style of thinking.
As a Persian... being from Iran..an contentious nation for 2500 years or so ... I can tell we've gotten worse..we dream and romanticise our past and Bitter about how we're giving this ancient land to the next generation
@@Burgermeister1836From the ones I know it is mixed but almost everyone would tell you it would have been favourable if Persians kept ruling Persia even if Muslim
the real question is: what would the early romans think of the late romans? Following the religion of the jews, ruled by barbarian mercenaries. Hell, imagine what would they think of the B*zantine "Romans", living in the east and speaking Greek...
they would need time travel but i think the byzantine castles and Armor would be very impressive to romans from 500 bc even if the society is less than ideal
@@ThomasBarth-gr1sz you say that like a Eastern Roman army under Belisarius couldn't crush a late republic army twice it's size led by Caesar. Hell, he'd do it on a shoestring budget with little casualties. I'm not underestimating Caesar, it's just that the army Belisarius would lead would have been superior in most, if not all, ways, due to being half a millennium more advanced in tech, tactics, and doctrine. It'd be like having Caesar face off against a Macedonian army led by Alexander, but even worse. It'd be even worse with a late Komnenian golden age army, Caesar would learn what the Gauls, Britons, and Germans felt facing him.
They viewed them as their own forefathers. There’s an old tale about a Greek soldier arriving in a remote village on the island of Lemnos after it had been seized from the Ottoman Empire in 1912. When the children came out to see him, the soldier asked “what are you looking at?” A child replied “I want to see what a Greek looks like” to which the soldier retorted “but you and everyone on this island are all Greeks” and the child said “we’re not Greeks, we are Romans”
@Bolognabeef Yeah and even before the war of independence, every person who was greek orthodox was called rum in the ottoman empire. Even after the fall of Constantinople the Roman identity while somewhat evolved still remained intact.
Michael Attaleiates devoted entire book(chapter)of his history to comparation of classical ancient Romans and those of his time.Several Authors were interrested in ancient Roman history some more than others,including emperors,some of which aspired on things like being new Marcus Aurelius or Trajan or had written Roman histories compiled for them.
This channel is becoming my favorite history-related channel. I had this thought for many years: What did late Romans think of early Romans, how they perceived them etc.
Extremely interesting as always. I'll be in Rome in a couple of days and I can't wait to see all the late antique monuments and art I can find. The last time I went there i focused too much on the classical, reinassance and baroque parts of the city
Thank you. Vegetius was indeed unfair to a later Roman Army which had to be extraordinary flexible force coping with invaders from every possible direction. The testudo and martial skills of old including marching encampments and formations persisted. Soldiers did not discard their armour unless for operations when lightness was needed.
Thank you for your kind donation Isaac, I really appreciate it :) Yes, Vegetius was biased against the late Roman army, but possibly he had a romantiziced vision when thinking about the early Roman army. And he erroneously blamed the late Roman army for the losses against the germanics, when in fact, it was just bad military commanders like Valens.
Not me thinking that this would be from the Eastern Roman’s perspective during like 1100 AD when you said late Roman instead of late western Roman in the title 😫🤣 you covered some early eastern Roman content though so yay
I initially assumed “what did late Eastern Romans think of the ancient empire” but I suppose the video title is referring to the entire empire. Maybe he focused more on western though… but by that logic, why not discuss what late North African or Egyptian Romans thought of the ancient empire, or what did late Iberians think of the ancient republic?
@@specialnewb9821Micheal Attaleiates made very direct comparation of Romans of his time with classical ancient Romans,he devoted entire chapter of his history to that very subject.
In 11th century Michael Attaleites devoted entire chapter to comparation of classical ancient Romans with those of his own time.Several other Authors of 6th century often do Comparations-Johannes Lydos,Anonymous author of Political dialogue,Evagrius Scholasticus who do so in confrontation of Zosimus and also Procopius occassionaly makes such comparations.
Thank you. Great history. I learned about this in Greece when going to school there. It was an obscure little reference to Justinian closing the Academy of Athens, triumphant against paganism.of course,the capturing of the minds. We did learn that the pagans thought Christians brought about the demise of the Western Roman Empire.I have always thought in that way since then.
The Christains burnt down Constantinople, burned down Alexandria and the "pagan" libraries, and even tortured the pious and great pagan Hypatia. And on and on until today. Yeah, your thoughts about Christianity being destructive is correct, history backs this up.
Not always and there are many situations when it is warranted. Look at working class and lower middle class opportunities in Western Europe. You can no longer save money and get a house anymore unless your parents inherit you one. I'm fortunate in that part but so many of my generation aren't.
That is not true though. People are only nostalgic to good times. There aren't many German people nostalgic for the 1940s, or Ukrainian people to the 1930s, or Irish people to the 1840s. And after the Western empire fell, many nations tried to emulate it and call themselves the 'New Rome', but none of them wanted to emulate the times of Honorius.
As England approaches its Millennium, I think of how the British view their history of Empire. Including the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, the Caribbean, and for a brief period ,India, one can get a sense of the Roman thinking. Since 1066, Britain has had an uninterrupted form of government, save the short Commonwealth, expansions, contractions, religious upheaval (Catholic/Protestant), dynastic crises, and economic turmoil. It provides an interesting analogy to see how contemporary Britain views itself as a way to understand how the Romans saw themselves. Sebastian, this has been a very thought provoking presentation.
Please note that British history starts in 1707 with the Acts of Union uniting the kingdoms of Scotland and England\Wales. Before that date there is no British history. "England" and "Britain" are not interchangeable terms. Also as a proud Celt I note that the territory now labelled as "England" was inhabited entirely by Celts long before the Anglo-Saxons arrived. And the Romans called the entire island Britannia.
I agree. The science is quite clear , all Britons are pretty much the same. It's just that especially on the continent people use England/ Britain interchangeably.
Well the gap from Rome in 400 AD to the time of Caesar is the same as the gap from modern Britain to the Jacobean era in England, which is kind of wild when you think about it
England was not formed in 1066 by William after the Norman conquest. It was united into a single polity by King Aethelstan in 927. I think it is more accurate to say that England has been a single continuous state since then. The Norman conquest changed the ruling dynasty, and introduced new governmental practices. But it was still very much the same kingdom it had been under the Anglo-Saxon kings, just with new rulers. The official name of the state changed with union with Scotland in 1707, and various changes with Wales and Ireland since. But, from the English perspective, the system of state is continuous back to Aethelstan. I agree with the first commenter who says that it would be more proper to refer to how the English consider their history than how the British do however. It looks quite different from elsewhere in the Union. I also don’t think that the comparison between how we current English might look back at Empire and how late Romans might have done quite holds. Empire was more a phase for us, disappearing into the past, while the state continues on as ever. The situation was quite different from Rome, where the centre of power had moved away from the original City State of Rome centuries earlier. It was an Empire until it crumbled. I think the concept of being an imperial state would have been far more central to them than it is to us today (despite the delusion of some who seem to think we are still an imperial level power).
@@brianmulrennan1845although you’re right, you’re a very, very boring person. You know what he meant. Being right on paper doesn’t always make you better; sometimes it makes you a bell end
As an Englishman, I do live in a state that has been around for more than 1,000 years. England was united into a single polity by King Aethelstan in 927 - very nearly 1,100 years. It is true that we created a union with Scotland in 1707, and the make up of the United Kingdom has changed a couple of times since in relation to Wales and Ireland. But still, our state and system of government can be traced in a continuous line back to Aethelstan, and even his grandfather Alfred, who began the process of unification some decades earlier. And personally, I am glad I live now, and not in the time of Aethelstan 😂
Wow. This is such an interesting subject. I've never heard or seen this raised before. I'm no scholar but have read all of Stephen dando collins & Tom Holland but neither for obvious reasons i guess have broached the idea that you have my friend . I think maybe you have opened up a new vain of what we know or don't know about " Romans" . I hope so.
Have you had a good increase in views!? There needs to be a great collaboration between all the Ancient Roman and Greek content youtubers...Kings and Generals, Historia Civilis, ect. You guys could really make some great videos. Im more partial to your content since it is so niche. Good luck Maiorianus!
As a citizen of a nation which has existed continuously for over a thouseand years, this is interesting. Here, too, there is a lot of romanticisation of the past (the moderately recent, rather than the far distant, the latter generally being regarded as primitive). Usually based on the idea life was more comfortable or, particularly, that there were more certainties about it. A common complaint is that things have been changing and too fast. There isn't the sharp religious divide there was in late Western Rome. Though there is disquiet in some quarters about newly-arrived immigrant faiths and also about secularism (but that debate has been on the decline since the 1960s).
It’s obviously UK. Debate is stronger than ever, just not publicly. The legacy media won’t show the views of your every day man because it doesn’t fit their narrative. People are sick.
0:27 you mean like living in England today ? We actually romanticise our founders. We absolutely love Alfred and the Wessex House. And everything he’s done and represented for England
@Maiorianus: I'd recommend consulting Michael Grant's books on ancient Rome. There are a lot of interesting facts and issues that he raised. Also, could you produce some episodes on the Gracchi and Lucius C Sulla? They are especially relevant to our current time here in the USA.
Congratulations! That was very interesting and helpful. As Later Roman Empire in historiography traditionally spans to 7th century (641 death of Heraclius), i'd like to know if there is any source from that time. I'd like also to know what late Romans in the east thought of their predecessors. The state was called Roman Empire, they called themselves Romans, other civilizations called them Romans, it was the continuation of the same state and after the deposition of the last Roman Emperor in the west, Odoacer ruled Italy as a client and in the name of Roman Emperor Zeno in Constantinople. He also sent the western imperial regalia to the east.
How much did the Latin language change during this period? I understand medieval 🏰 church ⛪️ Latin was very different from classical Latin - but how much did Latin change from beginning to end of the Roman period?
Thank you for this video, I’ve seen your others, they’re very nice. I think that Hollywood could make a very good movie covering the era of the fall the Roman Empire to the establishment of the dark ages.
If we consider that Romanity was present in the 11th century AD in the Eastern Roman Empire, I see that most Eastern Romans were fond of their very ancient past.
00:15 Dude, San Marino still exists today, it declared its independence from the Western Roman Empire and still largely exists in the same form in 2024.
I lived in Troy Michigan, were the huge San Marino club exists. The food was wonderful. And it was founded and populated by immigrants from San Marino. It's quite a wealthy country. With a population equivalent to a small American city.@@papalol1327
Good thing you didn't use Google's Gemini AI for the AI generated images to go along with your video. You might have a bunch of completely inaccurate "diverse" Romans who were Chinese, Indian, Native American, sub-Saharan African, and pretty much anything but European.
Something you didn't know majorian.... SPQR Senātus Populusque Rōmānus the que at the end of populus is another word for "and" so you didn't have to say: "et" in 2:02. I don't know if you said that on accident or not...just trying to help. That's where the Q come from in SPQR
5:00 to 5:25 Mark Anthony had a wax image of Julius Caesar showing his stab wounds commissioned for his funeral and mounted on a cruciform tropaeum for the service. The Imperial Cult continued the practice for its deified emperors' funerals and Justin Martyr noted that these wax images were mounted on "schematics of crosses" (1 Apology 55).
You wouldn't say "Senatus et Populusque Romanus", because adding a "-que" to the end of a word already means "and", there are two ways of saying "and" in latin. The way you said it, it literally means "The Roman Senate and and people". There's a double "and" and it's wrong.
May I ask the people who know their latin, do you speak Caesar in Latin as "Kaisar" (like he did in the beginning, unless I got something wrong) or like he later does "Caesar"? I also read somewhere, that you say Cicero as Kikero? The few things I know latin-related is that a c is spoken as a k, and his first Julius Kaisar made me think. And are there exceptions? Would be nice if someone could help me out! PS: And great video of course! Cool idea actually!
The K sound is classical latin pronounciation, such as in the time of Caesar himself. The soft C is from ecclesiastical latin and commonly used in anglicised probounciation.
Caesar in classical times (1st century BC - 1st century AD) was pronounced [KAESAR] with hard C and AE=AE: E as in the name "Esther" not as I. From the 2nd century AD the pronunciation changed and became [Tʃ ESAR] with soft C and AE=E
@@malarobo Thank you for your answer! So the maker of the video spoke the names correct for the times they lived in? Kaesar would also explain the German Kaiser.
I have started learning about the Fall of Rome and I wonder if you could recommend to me any writings by people who lived through it and wrote about it - complaining about the decline of the society and the Germanisation of the army etc? I love the writings of Juvenal and was wondering if there was anything sort of similar from the 4th and 5th centuries? What were people at the time saying about it?
I am really interested into non roman state paganism in the late eastern roman empire (like we have inklings from Martin of Braga's Rusticorum and oh so many epigraphs). Just saying, if one of these days you're looking for ideas.
When the Roman Empire fell people used to look at the engineering marvels with wonder. They could see that life must of been more advanced in the past.
in the word "condita" the accent goes on the "O". Putting it on the "I" literally means "seasoned" in italian, like putting oil and salt on the salad. :D
I would also recommend to read 11th century comparation Michael Attaleites as he directly compares Romans("...Byzantines...")of his times and their predecessors glorious Romans of classical antiquity.He devoted entire book(modernly a chapter) of his history to it.6th century works by Joannes Lydos are full of talking about Roman past,political dialogue written by anonymous author at the court of Justinian likewise compares classical Romans with 6th century Romans at several places,Evagrius Scholasticus also makes comparation in direct confrontation of Zosimos claiming Zosimus claims that since Romans left their old faith Empire was in decline are not correct and that opposite was in fact(in his opinion)the case and makes several comparations to prove his point.Also Prokopios occassionally refers to comparations with his time and Roman past.Justinian himself makes several excureses to Roman history in his law code but without bigger comparations.
Pretty sure the pagans looked back with fondness as things were better, while the Christians looked back with horror, due to the everything that went before Christianity
Just a little remark after watching such interesting video: in SPQR, Senatus PopulusQue Romanus, that "que" stands as an "et", in latin you can use either one or the other (ex. you can say "caelum et terram" or "caelum terramque"), so when you spell it you don't have to add an "et", it's already in there ;)
Did Ammianus Marcellinus not know that people threw lavish parties back in the "good old days" of Cicero and Tacitus as well? Decadence is not a bug, it's a feature.
🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus
So say like England...
0:27 you mean like living in England today ? We actually romanticise our founders. We absolutely love Alfred and the Wessex House. And everything he’s done and represented amd represents for England
Anstatt videos über die spätrömische Ziwilisation oder über generell Rom zu machen, drehe eher videos über die sehr altrömische Ziwilisation, unzwar die sieben Könige während der Zeit vor der Republik!
Das ist ein sehr interessantes und unerforschtes Niche!
Instead of continuing to make material about late the roman civilization or going mainstream Roman, make videos about the very early roman civilization, ie the seven kings etc.
This is a very interesting yet almost unreasearched topic which will make you stand out from the rest of the Rome geeks!
England moment
England the eternal nation🏴🏴💪
We need to see more Late Roman costumes in Late Roman movies.
problem with audiences is that they expect the extraordinary out of the "heroes" or "main characters" without historical context. Hollywood does just that. ppl want to see FICTION on the big screen, not cruel real history. seeing late roman troops wearing smth less appealing than the famous Lorica Segmentata means wasted ticket money. the truth often is left for documentaries. these days, thx to Netflix, they too are romanticized and politicized. "Truth" being removed from the scope of the project.
I've heard it's cause they reuse that segmentata and it's simply like expensive to do it. With their budgets and being a nerd, I say that's a shltty excuse!
@@tannerdenny5430 the BBC depicted early republic and late roman armor properly in the rise and fall series. if they could not sure why big studios today can't.
This is true. But it needs to be made easy to identify and make.
@@tannerdenny5430 True. Even LARPists often make better costumes than big budget TV shows.
"SPQR was used until the end of the Western Roman Empire"
modern municipality of Rome still uses it 🤣
Still or again?
@@muscledavis5434again, it’s really awesome though, it’s on every government infrastructure
Does Rome still have a senate?
@@FreedomForever2010I am the senate.
@@FreedomForever2010there is a city council that has a pretty roman meeting place,same as the ancient one iirc
"Imagine you live in a country which has existed for hundreds of, or even a thousand, years"
Well, there are quite a few countries of which this is true. Doesn't require too much imagination.
I live in one. England
Not really. Egypt exists, but modern Egyptians can't even speak the language.
@@Aaron19987Poor soul 😞
@@BorzogoThe Arabs conquered Egypt over 13 and a half centuries ago. So even just the current version of the country of Egypt is well over a thousand years old.
The motto SPQR is actually still in use as the motto of the city of Rome.
Interesting.. Uninterrumpted use, or revived sometime?
@@BernasLL If it was revived, they did decades ago and made it the official motto.
It would be cool if they added the wolf onto the coat of arms of the City of Rome. Is it a bit cheesy? Sure I suppose, but it would be a nice heritage factor to add it regardless.
@@boilingwateronthestove Google up "Lupa Capitolina". That statue is the city's official symbol.
Even the very flag of modern day city of Rome is SPQR on a dark red background
Hello, please let Maiorianus know that there is a channel in spanish that is PLAGIARIZING his videos. The channel is called: Conceptos Históricos
There is a portuguese Chanel too he just uses Ai voice and uses exactly the same video
@@franciscofunari2343 How sad they have to be to steal his work. PLEASE HELP LET HIM KNOW.
The scorge of the world. This trend can now use AI voice too, to make it worse..
What “trend” can now use AI voice, too? The AI trend…? @@dusk6159
This is normal. Time to accept it. The western understanding of 'owning words' that has only existing for around 200 will end. It was a blip in history. Foreign concept to eastern cultures.
Who can own words? No one. A perversion of property rights to include the owning of language and words.
To paraphrase a lecture I heard 6 years ago:
Polybius began his theory of the "cycle of history" because he feared that Rome was simply repeating Greek culture on a larger scale, fearing Rome had no culture of its own.
... with hindsight he was incorrect
Greek states begin as despotic kingdoms giving way to vibrant democracies, producing politicians such as Alcibiades and Pericles, as well as great philosophers such as the platonists and pre-Socratics. Playwrights like Homer, the Thebans, and Aeschylus flourished. Then they heroically defended their culture against the Persians and succeeded, then they fought a massive civil war (Peloponnesian War) which destroyed that culture (to some extent), and gave way to a more despotic period (Hellenistic Age).
Rome began as a despotic kingdom, giving way to a vibrant democracy which produced great politicians like Cincinnatus and Lucius Junius Brutus, great philosophers like Cicero and Philodemus, writers like Seneca and Virgil. Then, they fought a brutal war to preserve their culture against the Carthaginians and won. Then, they devolved into a period of massive civil wars, destroying their culture (to some extent), and giving way to a more despotic period (the Principate).
Greece was such a beacon of arts and science in those days, eh.
The cycle of civilization
@@jackhallander6706 "vibrant" LOL!
@@jackhallander6706 Pericles was an imperialist who dragged Athens into the pointless and destructive Peloponnesian wars -- which weakened the Greek city-states and gave more leeway to Persian influence -- and Alcibiades was a decadent man who played paramour with the State. Well, about the caliber of politician you should expect from bread and circus-run states that democracies are.
I always find it a very strange idea that the Roman Senate was this legendary force for centuries, its origins were the subject of heroic mythology.
But it ended so obscure that we don't even know when it ended, who was part of it then, or even why it ended.
Same
Gradually faded until one meeting, the members decided there was no point in any more.
The answer lies in the question. The Senate's end is obscure because the Senate had become obscure and pointless, and not even suddenly but over several centuries. The Senate you're referring to as this thing of heroic legend (and later great political intrigue) hadn't been around for hundreds of years by the time the formal institution ceased to be. So in that regard, who would really care to document the exact details of its end--it didn't matter and hadn't matter for generations by the point it occurred.
Disclaimer: no working class Roman, be him or her (God forbid!) slave or serf or even free farmer or urban proletarian, was asked in this poll. However the Bagaudae speak volumes.
Gods*
@@TonyJack74- Late Romans were generally Christian, hence "God" (I doubted for a second myself).
@LuisAldamiz *God and God's son who is not God but was still a pretty great guy. #notallheresies. Lmao
@@iivin4233- LOL, you are the heretic here: EVERYTHING IS GOD, by definition. NATURE IS GOD.
@@iivin4233 just God
SPQR stands for "Senatus Populusque Romanus", not "Senatus ET Populusque Romanus". The "-que" in "populusque" already means "and".
I remember learning the '-que' suffix in Latin class and thinking this was a very cool feature of the language.
The use of "common era" seems really weird to me, even as an atheist - what's the point in renaming it, if it still begins with the birth of Christ?
I'd understand using such a designation if it came as part of a new dating system and/or was derived from a different event... but it seems like an empty gesture if it's just used as a lazy renaming of the metric we've already got.
BC= Backwards Chronology
AD= Ascending Dates
Easiest way for a secular usage of BC/AD.
CE was very common in the east of Germany before the reunification. Maybe he is from there?
Jesus was born around 5 BC so using BC and AD doesn't have that much sense anyway
I think its a form of political correctness perhaps? I think this because i observed some people getting sensitive about this issue a lot for varying reasons.
@@paulmayson3129 As someone from a former communist state, BCE/CE seems like a terminology that the communists would've invented. It's a shame that western countries have adopted this style of thinking.
As a Persian... being from Iran..an contentious nation for 2500 years or so ... I can tell we've gotten worse..we dream and romanticise our past and Bitter about how we're giving this ancient land to the next generation
How is that worse, this is the plain truth
Isn't Kheomeini the latest hero of Iran?
@@literallynothinghere9089 Iranian nationalists are often pro the ancient Mazdaist tradition, and hence the spiritual enemies of Islam.
Is there a consensus among Iranians that their nation suffered a great disaster with the rise of Islam, or is the view more mixed?
@@Burgermeister1836From the ones I know it is mixed but almost everyone would tell you it would have been favourable if Persians kept ruling Persia even if Muslim
the real question is: what would the early romans think of the late romans? Following the religion of the jews, ruled by barbarian mercenaries. Hell, imagine what would they think of the B*zantine "Romans", living in the east and speaking Greek...
Yes, great question. I imagine they were a little envious.
they would need time travel but i think the byzantine castles and Armor would be very impressive to romans from 500 bc even if the society is less than ideal
@@belstar1128 compared to iconic Classical Roman architecture and the world-famous early Roman "lorica segmentata" armor? I hardly think so.
@@cathyf.2672why would they be envious of degenerates who ruin their empire?
@@ThomasBarth-gr1sz you say that like a Eastern Roman army under Belisarius couldn't crush a late republic army twice it's size led by Caesar. Hell, he'd do it on a shoestring budget with little casualties. I'm not underestimating Caesar, it's just that the army Belisarius would lead would have been superior in most, if not all, ways, due to being half a millennium more advanced in tech, tactics, and doctrine. It'd be like having Caesar face off against a Macedonian army led by Alexander, but even worse. It'd be even worse with a late Komnenian golden age army, Caesar would learn what the Gauls, Britons, and Germans felt facing him.
How did Romanized Greeks view Hellenized Romans?
They viewed them as their own forefathers.
There’s an old tale about a Greek soldier arriving in a remote village on the island of Lemnos after it had been seized from the Ottoman Empire in 1912. When the children came out to see him, the soldier asked “what are you looking at?” A child replied “I want to see what a Greek looks like” to which the soldier retorted “but you and everyone on this island are all Greeks” and the child said “we’re not Greeks, we are Romans”
@@aidanwotherspoon905I've heard that before the war of independence all Greeks in general referred to themselves as Romans, not just some islanders
@Bolognabeef Yeah and even before the war of independence, every person who was greek orthodox was called rum in the ottoman empire. Even after the fall of Constantinople the Roman identity while somewhat evolved still remained intact.
Michael Attaleiates devoted entire book(chapter)of his history to comparation of classical ancient Romans and those of his time.Several Authors were interrested in ancient Roman history some more than others,including emperors,some of which aspired on things like being new Marcus Aurelius or Trajan or had written Roman histories compiled for them.
Thank you, Sebastian, for sacrificing to teach about the Late Roman Empire!
This channel is becoming my favorite history-related channel. I had this thought for many years: What did late Romans think of early Romans, how they perceived them etc.
Incredible perspective! I always think about what late Roman’s thought . Looking at the ruins of the circus Maximus in its state of ruin etc
Like being in the UK nowadays - walking past closed down swimming pools and libraries. We used to have dentists! Just imagine that.
@@loopernoodling so sad. USA here NEW JERSEY
California…. All of it
Extremely interesting as always. I'll be in Rome in a couple of days and I can't wait to see all the late antique monuments and art I can find. The last time I went there i focused too much on the classical, reinassance and baroque parts of the city
It seems that no matter how far back in time you go or where in the world you will have people saying "I was born in the wrong generation"
An another interesting topic. Thank you. 👍
Thanks!
Thank you. Vegetius was indeed unfair to a later Roman Army which had to be extraordinary flexible force coping with invaders from every possible direction. The testudo and martial skills of old including marching encampments and formations persisted. Soldiers did not discard their armour unless for operations when lightness was needed.
Thank you for your kind donation Isaac, I really appreciate it :) Yes, Vegetius was biased against the late Roman army, but possibly he had a romantiziced vision when thinking about the early Roman army. And he erroneously blamed the late Roman army for the losses against the germanics, when in fact, it was just bad military commanders like Valens.
Feel like modern European countries could learn a lot from your first sentence.
"imagine you lived in a country that has existed for over a thousand years..." - dude. I'm English 😂😂
Not me thinking that this would be from the Eastern Roman’s perspective during like 1100 AD when you said late Roman instead of late western Roman in the title 😫🤣 you covered some early eastern Roman content though so yay
Oh you mean the Greek Empire? 😈
I initially assumed “what did late Eastern Romans think of the ancient empire” but I suppose the video title is referring to the entire empire. Maybe he focused more on western though… but by that logic, why not discuss what late North African or Egyptian Romans thought of the ancient empire, or what did late Iberians think of the ancient republic?
@@specialnewb9821Micheal Attaleiates made very direct comparation of Romans of his time with classical ancient Romans,he devoted entire chapter of his history to that very subject.
In 11th century Michael Attaleites devoted entire chapter to comparation of classical ancient Romans with those of his own time.Several other Authors of 6th century often do Comparations-Johannes Lydos,Anonymous author of Political dialogue,Evagrius Scholasticus who do so in confrontation of Zosimus and also Procopius occassionaly makes such comparations.
Again, a video for of interesting facts and well put together analysis.
Thank a lot again!
Très bon vidéo…. Je m’étais déjà posé cette question 😊
Another stellar video 🫡
Thank you. Great history. I learned about this in Greece when going to school there. It was an obscure little reference to Justinian closing the Academy of Athens, triumphant against paganism.of course,the capturing of the minds. We did learn that the pagans thought Christians brought about the demise of the Western Roman Empire.I have always thought in that way since then.
The Christains burnt down Constantinople, burned down Alexandria and the "pagan" libraries, and even tortured the pious and great pagan Hypatia. And on and on until today. Yeah, your thoughts about Christianity being destructive is correct, history backs this up.
If you think about it the Romans killed Jesus so....hilarious vengeance
Awesome video !
the AI footage in the beginning was so creepy
Thanks for sharing a way to contribute a one-time donation! This lets us help out when we can!
Great content as always 🙂
Tiny mistake: 2:05 senatus ET populusQUE? ;-)
Beautiful Documentaries, Congratulations!
Great store you got there
"Nostalgia is an affliction of the man who does not recognize that today is tomorrow's nostalgia."
Not always and there are many situations when it is warranted. Look at working class and lower middle class opportunities in Western Europe. You can no longer save money and get a house anymore unless your parents inherit you one. I'm fortunate in that part but so many of my generation aren't.
Nobody would look back at the Dark Ages with nostalgia. I don't think anyone would look back at these last few years with nostalgia either.
@@bubblelyte401 well, those few profiteering from it
It really sucks that the future will be so shitty people will long for the 2020s.
That is not true though. People are only nostalgic to good times. There aren't many German people nostalgic for the 1940s, or Ukrainian people to the 1930s, or Irish people to the 1840s.
And after the Western empire fell, many nations tried to emulate it and call themselves the 'New Rome', but none of them wanted to emulate the times of Honorius.
As England approaches its Millennium, I think of how the British view their history of Empire. Including the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, the Caribbean, and for a brief period ,India, one can get a sense of the Roman thinking. Since 1066, Britain has had an uninterrupted form of government, save the short Commonwealth, expansions, contractions, religious upheaval (Catholic/Protestant), dynastic crises, and economic turmoil. It provides an interesting analogy to see how contemporary Britain views itself as a way to understand how the Romans saw themselves. Sebastian, this has been a very thought provoking presentation.
Please note that British history starts in 1707 with the Acts of Union uniting the kingdoms of Scotland and England\Wales. Before that date there is no British history. "England" and "Britain" are not interchangeable terms. Also as a proud Celt I note that the territory now labelled as "England" was inhabited entirely by Celts long before the Anglo-Saxons arrived. And the Romans called the entire island Britannia.
I agree. The science is quite clear , all Britons are pretty much the same. It's just that especially on the continent people use England/ Britain interchangeably.
Well the gap from Rome in 400 AD to the time of Caesar is the same as the gap from modern Britain to the Jacobean era in England, which is kind of wild when you think about it
England was not formed in 1066 by William after the Norman conquest. It was united into a single polity by King Aethelstan in 927. I think it is more accurate to say that England has been a single continuous state since then. The Norman conquest changed the ruling dynasty, and introduced new governmental practices. But it was still very much the same kingdom it had been under the Anglo-Saxon kings, just with new rulers. The official name of the state changed with union with Scotland in 1707, and various changes with Wales and Ireland since. But, from the English perspective, the system of state is continuous back to Aethelstan. I agree with the first commenter who says that it would be more proper to refer to how the English consider their history than how the British do however. It looks quite different from elsewhere in the Union. I also don’t think that the comparison between how we current English might look back at Empire and how late Romans might have done quite holds. Empire was more a phase for us, disappearing into the past, while the state continues on as ever. The situation was quite different from Rome, where the centre of power had moved away from the original City State of Rome centuries earlier. It was an Empire until it crumbled. I think the concept of being an imperial state would have been far more central to them than it is to us today (despite the delusion of some who seem to think we are still an imperial level power).
@@brianmulrennan1845although you’re right, you’re a very, very boring person.
You know what he meant. Being right on paper doesn’t always make you better; sometimes it makes you a bell end
As an Englishman, I do live in a state that has been around for more than 1,000 years. England was united into a single polity by King Aethelstan in 927 - very nearly 1,100 years. It is true that we created a union with Scotland in 1707, and the make up of the United Kingdom has changed a couple of times since in relation to Wales and Ireland. But still, our state and system of government can be traced in a continuous line back to Aethelstan, and even his grandfather Alfred, who began the process of unification some decades earlier. And personally, I am glad I live now, and not in the time of Aethelstan 😂
Could you do a similar video for how the citizens of the late Eastern Roman empire saw the early Romans?
THIS. they’re the true late Romans, like even more 1000 years on the clock 💅
Wow. This is such an interesting subject. I've never heard or seen this raised before. I'm no scholar but have read all of Stephen dando collins & Tom Holland but neither for obvious reasons i guess have broached the idea that you have my friend . I think maybe you have opened up a new vain of what we know or don't know about " Romans" . I hope so.
Have you had a good increase in views!? There needs to be a great collaboration between all the Ancient Roman and Greek content youtubers...Kings and Generals, Historia Civilis, ect. You guys could really make some great videos. Im more partial to your content since it is so niche. Good luck Maiorianus!
2:02 SPQR means Senatus Populusque Romanus, the suffix -que is synonymous with the word et
As a citizen of a nation which has existed continuously for over a thouseand years, this is interesting. Here, too, there is a lot of romanticisation of the past (the moderately recent, rather than the far distant, the latter generally being regarded as primitive). Usually based on the idea life was more comfortable or, particularly, that there were more certainties about it. A common complaint is that things have been changing and too fast.
There isn't the sharp religious divide there was in late Western Rome. Though there is disquiet in some quarters about newly-arrived immigrant faiths and also about secularism (but that debate has been on the decline since the 1960s).
If you think that debate's on the decline, you haven't been paying attention.
@@lordfarquaad8601 You don't know what country he's from, maybe he's lucky.
It’s obviously UK.
Debate is stronger than ever, just not publicly. The legacy media won’t show the views of your every day man because it doesn’t fit their narrative.
People are sick.
Thanks
John of Nikiu, a Christian, has positive things to say about many earlier Romans including Augustus.
make a video about how major cities of Roman empire Chartage, Ephasus, Antioch ,Alexandria etc looked like
When he uploads you know it’s gonna be a good day
Majorian would be proud of you is the Romanobu’s equivalent of Senpai might notice you (one day).
I appreciate the correct pronounciation Kikero, Kaesar etc.
Isn't it more correctly pronounced "Chesar?"
@@lordfarquaad8601...no?
I think both the pronuciation of ae as "ai" from kaiser and "e" from cheddar are fine. In latin class I learnt that ae is pronounced e
Best channel for Roman content !
0:27 you mean like living in England today ? We actually romanticise our founders. We absolutely love Alfred and the Wessex House. And everything he’s done and represented for England
Of course it's not "Senatus et populusque romanus" (00:02:03). The -que suffix replaces the "et".
This is first rate content. Thank you!
A fine detailed and well researched video essay. Your channel gives UA-cam a good name. Almost as good as yours🎉
@Maiorianus: I'd recommend consulting Michael Grant's books on ancient Rome. There are a lot of interesting facts and issues that he raised. Also, could you produce some episodes on the Gracchi and Lucius C Sulla? They are especially relevant to our current time here in the USA.
I believe he is focusing on late Roman rather than late republic.
@@richardlindquist5936 : You're likely right. The late Western Roman Empire is a compelling period.
Congratulations! That was very interesting and helpful. As Later Roman Empire in historiography traditionally spans to 7th century (641 death of Heraclius), i'd like to know if there is any source from that time. I'd like also to know what late Romans in the east thought of their predecessors. The state was called Roman Empire, they called themselves Romans, other civilizations called them Romans, it was the continuation of the same state and after the deposition of the last Roman Emperor in the west, Odoacer ruled Italy as a client and in the name of Roman Emperor Zeno in Constantinople. He also sent the western imperial regalia to the east.
Nice to meet you Maiorianus
A survey about Romand ad Ostroths citizens in the early years of Theodoricus coukd be very interesting
This video is so unbiased,I m not used to this .
Very well done!
Great topic!
Thank you for your amazing work.
There is a Chanel in Brazilian that is stealing your videos and translating with AI voice the name is Noções de história
How much did the Latin language change during this period? I understand medieval 🏰 church ⛪️ Latin was very different from classical Latin - but how much did Latin change from beginning to end of the Roman period?
Meherculēs, bēluae istae porrō nīl tenent.
Ego exigit ab omnī tribū pretium vicēnum boum, vel quīnquāgēnum ponderum frūmentī centēnāriī.
Spatium vōbīs est triduum!
Great video
Thank you for this video, I’ve seen your others, they’re very nice. I think that Hollywood could make a very good movie covering the era of the fall the Roman Empire to the establishment of the dark ages.
Where are these images and simulations from? Some look AI gen but theres no credit or clarification
If we consider that Romanity was present in the 11th century AD in the Eastern Roman Empire, I see that most Eastern Romans were fond of their very ancient past.
00:15 Dude, San Marino still exists today, it declared its independence from the Western Roman Empire and still largely exists in the same form in 2024.
Yeah, san marino, an "independent" country inhabited by 14 people and a goat
I lived in Troy Michigan, were the huge San Marino club exists. The food was wonderful. And it was founded and populated by immigrants from San Marino. It's quite a wealthy country. With a population equivalent to a small American city.@@papalol1327
Thank you for using the correct Latin name pronunciations. 🙏
An excellent video. However, at 2:00 you said "Senatus et (sic) Populusque Romanus." It is correctly "Senatus Populusque Romanus."
Good thing you didn't use Google's Gemini AI for the AI generated images to go along with your video. You might have a bunch of completely inaccurate "diverse" Romans who were Chinese, Indian, Native American, sub-Saharan African, and pretty much anything but European.
1:08 As a Swede, I can tell you that it's not that strange, and most people never ever contemplate it at all.
Great vídeo
I guess I am not the only person who might believed I was born in the wrong timeline here. So I understand the late Romans who are pagans very well.
"Imagine you live in a country that has existed for hundreds, nay, for a thousand years..."
Me: *Laughs in British*
English
@@Nathan-jt8zt There are other nations in the UK…
@@williamrees6662 no relevant ones though
@@Nathan-jt8zt Yawn. Get a life.
Something you didn't know majorian.... SPQR Senātus Populusque Rōmānus the que at the end of populus is another word for "and" so you didn't have to say: "et" in 2:02. I don't know if you said that on accident or not...just trying to help. That's where the Q come from in SPQR
5:00 to 5:25 Mark Anthony had a wax image of Julius Caesar showing his stab wounds commissioned for his funeral and mounted on a cruciform tropaeum for the service.
The Imperial Cult continued the practice for its deified emperors' funerals and Justin Martyr noted that these wax images were mounted on "schematics of crosses" (1 Apology 55).
Thanks To This Magnificent Vídeo.
You wouldn't say "Senatus et Populusque Romanus", because adding a "-que" to the end of a word already means "and", there are two ways of saying "and" in latin. The way you said it, it literally means "The Roman Senate and and people". There's a double "and" and it's wrong.
Back when I was in my early 20's, I realized I was really a late antiquity Roman pagan.
What on Earth is the basis of the - presumably generated but truly gorgeous - imagery used in this video?
May I ask the people who know their latin, do you speak Caesar in Latin as "Kaisar" (like he did in the beginning, unless I got something wrong) or like he later does "Caesar"? I also read somewhere, that you say Cicero as Kikero?
The few things I know latin-related is that a c is spoken as a k, and his first Julius Kaisar made me think. And are there exceptions?
Would be nice if someone could help me out!
PS: And great video of course! Cool idea actually!
The K sound is classical latin pronounciation, such as in the time of Caesar himself. The soft C is from ecclesiastical latin and commonly used in anglicised probounciation.
Caesar in classical times (1st century BC - 1st century AD) was pronounced [KAESAR] with hard C and AE=AE: E as in the name "Esther" not as I.
From the 2nd century AD the pronunciation changed and became [Tʃ ESAR] with soft C and AE=E
@@alexsmith965 Thank you very much for the answer. I did not know it changed over time! Learned something new today!
@@malarobo Thank you for your answer! So the maker of the video spoke the names correct for the times they lived in? Kaesar would also explain the German Kaiser.
@perseus274 Thank you. That´s how I knew it too, his Kaesar made me think. But it seems it was pronounced that way earlier in history, I had no idea.
I have started learning about the Fall of Rome and I wonder if you could recommend to me any writings by people who lived through it and wrote about it - complaining about the decline of the society and the Germanisation of the army etc? I love the writings of Juvenal and was wondering if there was anything sort of similar from the 4th and 5th centuries? What were people at the time saying about it?
I cannot imagine 19 minutes to answer "what did late romans think of early romans?"
What is that beeping in the background?
I'm hearing a weird beeping in the audio. Maybe the music is coming out odd?
14:08 Constantine had insane drip
fr fr
I am really interested into non roman state paganism in the late eastern roman empire (like we have inklings from Martin of Braga's Rusticorum and oh so many epigraphs).
Just saying, if one of these days you're looking for ideas.
When the Roman Empire fell people used to look at the engineering marvels with wonder. They could see that life must of been more advanced in the past.
in the word "condita" the accent goes on the "O". Putting it on the "I" literally means "seasoned" in italian, like putting oil and salt on the salad. :D
Absolutely unsurprising that the downfall of Rome is at the very least extremely tightly and irrefutably linked to Christianity…
I would also recommend to read 11th century comparation Michael Attaleites as he directly compares Romans("...Byzantines...")of his times and their predecessors glorious Romans of classical antiquity.He devoted entire book(modernly a chapter) of his history to it.6th century works by Joannes Lydos are full of talking about Roman past,political dialogue written by anonymous author at the court of Justinian likewise compares classical Romans with 6th century Romans at several places,Evagrius Scholasticus also makes comparation in direct confrontation of Zosimos claiming Zosimus claims that since Romans left their old faith Empire was in decline are not correct and that opposite was in fact(in his opinion)the case and makes several comparations to prove his point.Also Prokopios occassionally refers to comparations with his time and Roman past.Justinian himself makes several excureses to Roman history in his law code but without bigger comparations.
Pretty sure the pagans looked back with fondness as things were better, while the Christians looked back with horror, due to the everything that went before Christianity
Just a little remark after watching such interesting video: in SPQR, Senatus PopulusQue Romanus, that "que" stands as an "et", in latin you can use either one or the other (ex. you can say "caelum et terram" or "caelum terramque"), so when you spell it you don't have to add an "et", it's already in there ;)
6 am rome time baby
Did Ammianus Marcellinus not know that people threw lavish parties back in the "good old days" of Cicero and Tacitus as well? Decadence is not a bug, it's a feature.
> Continuously ruin empire with in-fighting and sabotage
> Tell how bad pagans forged greatest empire in the world
Average christian roman experience
Enjoyable video.
Just a note: "Senatus ET populusQUE romanus" is a tautology. "ET" and "QUE" are synonymous. It is one or the other