Tbh even though most people prefer the late republic/early Empire periods, the late Empire and the early Bizantine Empire really are my favorite time periods of Roman history. It's so interesting to see how Roman society is forced to change to adapt to adversity, and the drama really feels like a tv show.
The displacement of Latin by Greek in the east in one thing that infuriates me. Mostly it puts fuel to fear in my mind. An America with multiple people speaking many languages is fine, but one where there is a dominant language that isn't English... isn't really dear to me. If a time traveler revealed this is what happened to my country 7 generations later, I'd treat my own country no different than Russia, Britain, Germany, Canada, or whatever. It wouldn't be a home anymore, more like a place I physically occupy.
Tbh if Stilico became the regent/magister militum of both Emperors i think there's a chance things wouldn't have gotten this fucking bad. Dude was power hungry yes but he was damn talented and cared about protecting the Empire
I think Honorius would have still killed him because he was "a threat" the same way Valentinan lll killed Aetius a few decades later. Those two emperors doomed the West.
@@yousefshahin2654 Honorius killed Sitllico because he was dumb enough to get manipulated by Olympius. If Stillico had an influence on the whole empire i don't think anybody would have had the balls to stand up to him. Wherehas in real life Stillico had a lot of ennemies in the east which made it easier for people to stand up to him in the west.
@@dieu7905 I checked it and I guess you're right. Maybe the west would have survived a few more decades than it did in real life had Stilicho not been killed.
His death signaled the death of the west tbh utter lunacy to do that then massacre Alaric's tribes families like the barbarians they claimed others were.
@@dieu7905Valentinian in fact also was manipulated by Petronius Maximus and partly by Heraclius. Honorius though mostly gave no sheet on Roman affairs and never was power hungry, just sitting on the throne, doing clan bonds and some visual novel ahh sidequests. Valentinian... Well, he always dreamed of being a good emperor, yet never tried to do something decent to be remembered and fell into a trap of a person whose wife he assaulted.
- Barbarians overrun the Romans - Talented Roman general appears and defeats them, stabilization of the empire begins - Talented general is murdered - Barbarians overrun the Romans - Repeat But sadly, you can only have a limited anount of luck in having talented and loyal generals
If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone call the Gibraltar Strait the "Pillars of Hercules" , I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice
It's not that the city of Rome wasn't politically significant, in fact many Western Emperors resided there and preferred it over Ravenna. But, it was farther away from the frontiers and generally the city was losing population as declining grain imports couldn't feed the city anymore. However, it was still by far the largest city in Western Europe until the Gothic Wars which created a diminished Roman state led by the Pope and left it surrounded by often hostile Lombard kingdoms. The old Roman aristocracy was still present in Rome until the 7th century.
Rome was a tourist destination by the 3rd Century Crisis. AURELIAN clipped the wings of the old capital which had become a corrupt backwater of out of touch, but wealthy and self interested aristocrats. Aurellian shut down the mints, and after defeating Zenobia, knew Rome was now the ERE with Rome as a cultural centre and the WRE states as a tax base
Something interesting about Attila's invasion of Italy is that after sacking Aquilea and on his way to Rome, Pope Leo confronted him and wanted to talk to him, they went into a room, talked, and then Attila decided to leave. No one knows what the two talked about.
To be fair, judging how conflictual the relationship between popes and holy roman emperors became in the middle ages, I'm not surprised he didn't have any interest in having to deal with this guy and his followers.
I think it’s very dramatic to say that the Roman Empire after the crisis of the Third century and Diocletians reforms was in a state of marked decline. If anything, Evidence points to the period between the Tetrarchy and Valens’ loss at Adrianople had the empire at its strongest, with the highly centralized Roman state being able to acquire more taxes and material goods than ever from its provinces, was at its military peak, able to field an unprecedented amount of soldiers with levels of production and logistical support that Dwarfs anything from the Republican or Principate period. Scholars are now appreciating the 4th century as one of Romes golden ages, if not it’s absolute peak, which of course makes its sudden and precipitous decline by the 5th century all the more fascinating. However. I have heard a very interesting argument that the centralizing reforms of Aurelian, while restoring the Roman state and making it far more centralized in reaction to the circumstances of the Crisis of the third century also weakened it in a very fundamental aspect through fundamentally changing the relationship between the Roman state and its urban provincial aristocracies. In the principate period, Urban provincials had a much higher stake in the Roman state through not only public works and constructions, but also in having local rule in the interest of the Roman state. While this did not go away after the crisis, It was most definitely weakened. Local military orders were dismantled while mints were “nationalized” by the emperor themselves under Aurelian, Not to mention. Diocletian would then establish a robust civil service that was divorced from aristocratic control, and now all of a sudden, Aristocrats were able to benefit from the control of the Roman state without contributing to it, making them more susceptible to jumping ship and swearing allegiance to an actual authority representing by the barbarians once central authority in the emperor completely vanished. The reforms of Aurelian and Diocletian left rome far more all encompassing, centralized, and efficient. No longer was Rome an empire based in Italy, Rome was now everything from Brittania to Upper Egypt, an bureaucratic construct and governmental apparatus that transcended it’s original understanding. But the state, While stronger, also became far more brittle and less flexible. When the crisis of the third century broke out, There were local Greek cults fighting to maintain imperial order against the goths, Palmyra was holding the east down against the Sassanids, And the Gallic Empire maintained roman order in a way the central government could not at the time. These were not just seceding empires like many people claim, But these were “emergency empires” that managed to maintain a roman presence in regions that would have otherwise been utterly lost by the central state. After the state was remolded after the crisis, And the central authority became ruled by weak emperors and literal children, The provincial aristocracies were no longer a support system for the empire to fall back on, But now indifferent opportunists with no interest in maintaining the state This is not the only reason why the western empire fell of course, but this is certainly a reason.
around 14:35 marker you say that they broke through in 1406-1407 by mistake, rip. spectrum so traumatized just talking about events in honorius' reign that he can't speak right. I know the feeling.
6:29 Did you get that image from the Wikipedia article on the battle of the Catalaunian Plains? I assume so. If that's true I think that's cool because I'm the person who added that image to the article.
I suppose its a law of the universe that the more closely related a history channel/nerd is into Rome, the More inevitable they make a video or rant about what caused Rome to Fall.
In many ways the seeds for the empire's fall were laid by the extreme measures taken to prevent collapse in the third century. The increasing power of local landowners caused by the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine starved the empire of resources and troops when it desperately needed them.
This maybe challenging for you but, could you maybe do a ranking of all Roman Related Emperors (Augustus to Constantine XI)? It would be heckin awesome if you could!
A friend and I have had a recent discussion on whether or not the Byzantines/eastern Roman Empire is a successor or a continuation of the empire. He claims it’s a successor that claimed the title and that it’s not the original empire. I claim that it’s the continuation of the Roman Empire. What do you think Spectrum
It definitely was continuation of Roman Empire, at least until Greek reform. The more interesting question is if Western Empire actually did fall and why it didn't?
One of the largest factors unspoken of is slavery. The creation of massive latifunda farms where wealthy landowners held huge swaths of land and wealth rotted the Western Roman Empire just as much as it did the Roman Republic in the 2nd and 1st Century BC in every way from law to quality of life to loyalty to the military to societal resiliency; Dicoletian instating feudal ties to peasants was the nail in the coffin no matter who was going to win what war or beat what invader.
I personally believed that it was internal factor that did most of damage or rather allowed the damage to happen. If the internal factors weren't there then the Germans wouldn't have successfully invaded them. W. Rome has gotten more weaker than the barbarians has gotten stronger. East Rome manage to survive due to better fundamentals and by looking at their history they had to fight Persians, Caliphates, Bulgars, Slavs, West and Turkics and still surivived longer than Roman Republic and Empire combined.
I think the Roman Empire should be split up into two time periods, the Pagan Roman Empire and the Christian Roman Empire. I'd say when Christianity became the state religion, that symbolically marked the end of "classical" ancient Rome. It was a distinctly different empire after that ideologically. Same laws, same institutions, still Romans, but the previous spirit it had that built it up in the first place was gone and replaced with a new Christian one. The pagan Empire symbolized by constant expansion and being controlled from Rome, and the Christian Empire symbolized by terminal decline and being controlled from Constantinople.
Odoacer still nominally paid homage to the Eastern Emperor, which kind of makes the Western Roman Empire to not yet have fallen at that point. So, when did no one even make a pretense at recognizing any type of Roman legitimacy or political lineage?
Attila is incredibly overrated as a commander tbh. He was very talented at burning peasant villages and instilling fear, but mediocre when it came to armies that could actually fight back.
Constantine saved the empire. If you sub him for just a regular emperor the 5th century would have been brought forward a century. He restructured and unified the most vital instruments of state, similar to Charlemagne recentralizing Europe with education and religion
In most of the video you talked about events before the death of majorian,this is wrong. You should have started the video right after the death of majorian.I like most of your videos but this one surely isnt that good.Most people here already know the outlining events,we need the focus on interesting details such as reign of anthemius and political and economic structure of some of rome's enemies such as vandals.
Spectrum, maybe if you do another ranking video... I have a few ideas.... you could try Georgia.... while that may seem difficult given its history, to keep it simple, if you did go ahead with that idea, I suggest the time period strictly where Georgia was mostly united, between 1008 and 1490. Or, since you've been doing a small series on the Habsburgs, you could rank them as well, for that, I would rank them from when Albert I of Germany, who if I remember right, was the first Habsburg to rule Austria... all the way to Karl I of Austria, which would be a timespan of 1282 to 1918. And then there's Hungary... from Saint Stephen to Louis II which would be 1000 - 1526... ( or 1570 if you would consider John I and John II to be legitimate rulers )
My take on the fall of the Western Empire is that it was a victim of its own success, and that European culture and civilization had evolved and diversified past the point where one pre-modern empire was capable of effectively governing it.
Tbh even though most people prefer the late republic/early Empire periods, the late Empire and the early Bizantine Empire really are my favorite time periods of Roman history. It's so interesting to see how Roman society is forced to change to adapt to adversity, and the drama really feels like a tv show.
I personally like the Empire 1025-1185.
the Komnenian Restoration is my favorite part of Roman history
@@boxofturtles761 Yes. For me, especially John II. One of Eastern Rome's greatest generals, had an eye for talent, and was actually a kind man.
@@aaronTGP_3756 I love the Komnenos dynasty
The displacement of Latin by Greek in the east in one thing that infuriates me. Mostly it puts fuel to fear in my mind. An America with multiple people speaking many languages is fine, but one where there is a dominant language that isn't English... isn't really dear to me. If a time traveler revealed this is what happened to my country 7 generations later, I'd treat my own country no different than Russia, Britain, Germany, Canada, or whatever. It wouldn't be a home anymore, more like a place I physically occupy.
> sees headline
> insert transform_into_crying_chud.gif
> “it’s over”
> millions must perish
>Why is there spaces between the arrows?
Tbh if Stilico became the regent/magister militum of both Emperors i think there's a chance things wouldn't have gotten this fucking bad. Dude was power hungry yes but he was damn talented and cared about protecting the Empire
I think Honorius would have still killed him because he was "a threat" the same way Valentinan lll killed Aetius a few decades later. Those two emperors doomed the West.
@@yousefshahin2654 Honorius killed Sitllico because he was dumb enough to get manipulated by Olympius. If Stillico had an influence on the whole empire i don't think anybody would have had the balls to stand up to him. Wherehas in real life Stillico had a lot of ennemies in the east which made it easier for people to stand up to him in the west.
@@dieu7905 I checked it and I guess you're right. Maybe the west would have survived a few more decades than it did in real life had Stilicho not been killed.
His death signaled the death of the west tbh utter lunacy to do that then massacre Alaric's tribes families like the barbarians they claimed others were.
@@dieu7905Valentinian in fact also was manipulated by Petronius Maximus and partly by Heraclius. Honorius though mostly gave no sheet on Roman affairs and never was power hungry, just sitting on the throne, doing clan bonds and some visual novel ahh sidequests. Valentinian... Well, he always dreamed of being a good emperor, yet never tried to do something decent to be remembered and fell into a trap of a person whose wife he assaulted.
- Barbarians overrun the Romans
- Talented Roman general appears and defeats them, stabilization of the empire begins
- Talented general is murdered
- Barbarians overrun the Romans
- Repeat
But sadly, you can only have a limited anount of luck in having talented and loyal generals
This shit continued in the Eastern Empire right up until the very end in the 15th century.
You missed the part where Romans massacre or abuse the barbarians, inciting their violence in the first place
Also, why try when you know it's doomed. Same with US now.
AND THEY WERE HALF BARBARIANS smh
If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone call the Gibraltar Strait the "Pillars of Hercules" , I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice
Wait, I thought everyone called them that way
@@incoerenza4331 No, but they definitely should
It's not that the city of Rome wasn't politically significant, in fact many Western Emperors resided there and preferred it over Ravenna. But, it was farther away from the frontiers and generally the city was losing population as declining grain imports couldn't feed the city anymore. However, it was still by far the largest city in Western Europe until the Gothic Wars which created a diminished Roman state led by the Pope and left it surrounded by often hostile Lombard kingdoms. The old Roman aristocracy was still present in Rome until the 7th century.
when did Constantinople start becoming a metropolis?
Most of the old aristocratic families and senators fled Rome during thr Gothic wars for Constantinople and lived there.
@@beanboi9156 since its founding. Constantine the Great intended for it to be a huge city worthy of being the Empire's capital and Rome's successor.
I mean, that's exactly what makes it politically less significant. Iirc Diocletian, Constantine only visited the city 2-3 times in their entire lives
Rome was a tourist destination by the 3rd Century Crisis. AURELIAN clipped the wings of the old capital which had become a corrupt backwater of out of touch, but wealthy and self interested aristocrats. Aurellian shut down the mints, and after defeating Zenobia, knew Rome was now the ERE with Rome as a cultural centre and the WRE states as a tax base
billions must listen to youtube essays.
it’s over bros
If I had a nickel for every video ive seen on the fall of the west.
I'd have a shit load of nickels.
Chud bros we’re coming home
Do a Habsburg Emperor tier list! Starting with Frederick III and finishing with Charles I.
Don’t be so demanding dude Jeez
@@roryjarson9731 omg it's a suggestion of a video idea??? It's not being demanding, that's how all yt channels operate.
@burakh's gorrila grip dude could have at least said please..
@@Copeman9999 they did it completely in a normal way, should they also refer to him as "Sir" when we're at it?
Welcome back! I love any and all videos on the Roman Empire. Keep up the GREAT work you do!
I CANT BREEEEED
Chuds do this and say this
Rome has fallen
Millions must undergo peasantization
Mussolini predicted this…
@@merucrypoison296 bro predicted something that happened 2000 years in the past, what a prophet
I just realized... It's been awhile since I've watched a video of yours...
You have grown so big since I first found you . Please keep it up
Fallen but never forgotten
Something interesting about Attila's invasion of Italy is that after sacking Aquilea and on his way to Rome, Pope Leo confronted him and wanted to talk to him, they went into a room, talked, and then Attila decided to leave. No one knows what the two talked about.
To be fair, judging how conflictual the relationship between popes and holy roman emperors became in the middle ages, I'm not surprised he didn't have any interest in having to deal with this guy and his followers.
@@incoerenza4331 What people miss is how many Popes were in the middle ages...
We’re so back
Your videos are always so through and well narrated! Kudos to you man!😊😊😊
Majorian is most based Western Roman Emperor
You can ask "Did X cause the fall of the Roman Empire?", subsituting X for just about anything, and the answer will be "Yes, in part."
Nothing exists by itself, not even god
90% of the "x" still is Honorius
@@meduseld6610 Gods essence is His existence.
I think it’s very dramatic to say that the Roman Empire after the crisis of the Third century and Diocletians reforms was in a state of marked decline. If anything, Evidence points to the period between the Tetrarchy and Valens’ loss at Adrianople had the empire at its strongest, with the highly centralized Roman state being able to acquire more taxes and material goods than ever from its provinces, was at its military peak, able to field an unprecedented amount of soldiers with levels of production and logistical support that Dwarfs anything from the Republican or Principate period. Scholars are now appreciating the 4th century as one of Romes golden ages, if not it’s absolute peak, which of course makes its sudden and precipitous decline by the 5th century all the more fascinating.
However.
I have heard a very interesting argument that the centralizing reforms of Aurelian, while restoring the Roman state and making it far more centralized in reaction to the circumstances of the Crisis of the third century also weakened it in a very fundamental aspect through fundamentally changing the relationship between the Roman state and its urban provincial aristocracies. In the principate period, Urban provincials had a much higher stake in the Roman state through not only public works and constructions, but also in having local rule in the interest of the Roman state. While this did not go away after the crisis, It was most definitely weakened. Local military orders were dismantled while mints were “nationalized” by the emperor themselves under Aurelian, Not to mention. Diocletian would then establish a robust civil service that was divorced from aristocratic control, and now all of a sudden, Aristocrats were able to benefit from the control of the Roman state without contributing to it, making them more susceptible to jumping ship and swearing allegiance to an actual authority representing by the barbarians once central authority in the emperor completely vanished.
The reforms of Aurelian and Diocletian left rome far more all encompassing, centralized, and efficient. No longer was Rome an empire based in Italy, Rome was now everything from Brittania to Upper Egypt, an bureaucratic construct and governmental apparatus that transcended it’s original understanding.
But the state, While stronger, also became far more brittle and less flexible. When the crisis of the third century broke out, There were local Greek cults fighting to maintain imperial order against the goths, Palmyra was holding the east down against the Sassanids, And the Gallic Empire maintained roman order in a way the central government could not at the time. These were not just seceding empires like many people claim, But these were “emergency empires” that managed to maintain a roman presence in regions that would have otherwise been utterly lost by the central state. After the state was remolded after the crisis, And the central authority became ruled by weak emperors and literal children, The provincial aristocracies were no longer a support system for the empire to fall back on, But now indifferent opportunists with no interest in maintaining the state
This is not the only reason why the western empire fell of course, but this is certainly a reason.
around 14:35 marker you say that they broke through in 1406-1407 by mistake, rip. spectrum so traumatized just talking about events in honorius' reign that he can't speak right. I know the feeling.
6:29 Did you get that image from the Wikipedia article on the battle of the Catalaunian Plains? I assume so. If that's true I think that's cool because I'm the person who added that image to the article.
Where did you get the image from?
@@BR0984 Wikimedia
I did. Thanks for adding it!
@@spectrum1140 Your welcome, also the video was very good
The west has fallen? Its over. . .
nah bosnia still exists as the last holdout of civilisation
it’s over
I suppose its a law of the universe that the more closely related a history channel/nerd is into Rome, the More inevitable they make a video or rant about what caused Rome to Fall.
In many ways the seeds for the empire's fall were laid by the extreme measures taken to prevent collapse in the third century. The increasing power of local landowners caused by the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine starved the empire of resources and troops when it desperately needed them.
I can tell this is gonna be a banger
Fantastic video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁👏👏
MILLIONS MUST WATCH
Rip Majorian
Just here to confirm that the West has indeed fallen
the west has fallen....
We’re so back
@@merucrypoison296it’s over
gazillions must live
This maybe challenging for you but, could you maybe do a ranking of all Roman Related Emperors (Augustus to Constantine XI)? It would be heckin awesome if you could!
Does that include Charlemagne?
Please make a video ranking every Safavid Shah from worst to best
What do you mean fallen? Albania still exists!!!
Totally irrelevant.
@@tshepangmoletsane1866how?
Lmao, glorious Rome lives on
Isn't Albania imaginary country that doesn't actually exist?
@@voramok5366 Serbia eshte shqiptare
Westphalen
Its over, so over
Litteraly cant be more over then this
we’re so back
A friend and I have had a recent discussion on whether or not the Byzantines/eastern Roman Empire is a successor or a continuation of the empire. He claims it’s a successor that claimed the title and that it’s not the original empire. I claim that it’s the continuation of the Roman Empire.
What do you think Spectrum
It definitely was continuation of Roman Empire, at least until Greek reform.
The more interesting question is if Western Empire actually did fall and why it didn't?
Please make HRE emperors tier list, Sassanids would also be epic.
The west has fallen
erm....its over
Errmmmmm what da flip?
“Imperator, a second barbarian tribe has sacked the city of rome”
It’s so over
Very interesting video
please reupload this video, there are a few too many errors. quality > upload speed, don't worry about sticking to a schedule :)
One of the largest factors unspoken of is slavery. The creation of massive latifunda farms where wealthy landowners held huge swaths of land and wealth rotted the Western Roman Empire just as much as it did the Roman Republic in the 2nd and 1st Century BC in every way from law to quality of life to loyalty to the military to societal resiliency; Dicoletian instating feudal ties to peasants was the nail in the coffin no matter who was going to win what war or beat what invader.
Gibbon be like: "IT WAS THOSE WEAK WILLED CHRISTIANS!"
How often do you think about the Roman Empire?
Spectrum: *yes*
what game is this shown in the video?
millions must die😔
where did the billions must die phase occur?
I personally believed that it was internal factor that did most of damage or rather allowed the damage to happen. If the internal factors weren't there then the Germans wouldn't have successfully invaded them. W. Rome has gotten more weaker than the barbarians has gotten stronger.
East Rome manage to survive due to better fundamentals and by looking at their history they had to fight Persians, Caliphates, Bulgars, Slavs, West and Turkics and still surivived longer than Roman Republic and Empire combined.
I think the Roman Empire should be split up into two time periods, the Pagan Roman Empire and the Christian Roman Empire. I'd say when Christianity became the state religion, that symbolically marked the end of "classical" ancient Rome. It was a distinctly different empire after that ideologically. Same laws, same institutions, still Romans, but the previous spirit it had that built it up in the first place was gone and replaced with a new Christian one. The pagan Empire symbolized by constant expansion and being controlled from Rome, and the Christian Empire symbolized by terminal decline and being controlled from Constantinople.
0:22 I mean it did last last another thousand+ years as the East so GG
wake up babe new Spectrum video
Oh, I thought this video was going to be about modern day.
Odoacer still nominally paid homage to the Eastern Emperor, which kind of makes the Western Roman Empire to not yet have fallen at that point. So, when did no one even make a pretense at recognizing any type of Roman legitimacy or political lineage?
Both Moscow and the ottoman sultan (till late 18th century) regarded themselves as Rome's succesors... so... never actually
Do a swedish King tier list man!🎉🎉🎉
Could you rank US Presidents? Or is it too modern history for you
Caveman ranking when?
The Late Empire was a time to be alive
As much as any
It happened because I feel asleep and the cat knocked the west from the table. Sorry guys.
The real question is:did it hit its head??
15:46 here, dont you mean that he overestimated the importance of Rome?
TND
Total Nigga Death!
Attila is incredibly overrated as a commander tbh. He was very talented at burning peasant villages and instilling fear, but mediocre when it came to armies that could actually fight back.
14:35 1406, 1407???
Literally one line on the plagues? Common, the decline of the Pax Romana was Commodus? Plagues played a substantially higher role
Millions must fry…
Give it another few years and you'll see, first hand, how the"west" falls.
Do a Sassanid emperor Tier list
It's over the horizon 2019
I guess that's it.
🤯
Next vid - 'The Fall of the East - how it happened'.
Internal factors made the external factors possible.
Constantine saved the empire. If you sub him for just a regular emperor the 5th century would have been brought forward a century. He restructured and unified the most vital instruments of state, similar to Charlemagne recentralizing Europe with education and religion
It’s joever
Call me a revisionist, but I am more in the camp of calling Julius Nepos the last Western Roman Emperor.
In most of the video you talked about events before the death of majorian,this is wrong. You should have started the video right after the death of majorian.I like most of your videos but this one surely isnt that good.Most people here already know the outlining events,we need the focus on interesting details such as reign of anthemius and political and economic structure of some of rome's enemies such as vandals.
thank you !
Spectrum, maybe if you do another ranking video... I have a few ideas....
you could try Georgia.... while that may seem difficult given its history, to keep it simple, if you did go ahead with that idea, I suggest the time period strictly where Georgia was mostly united, between 1008 and 1490.
Or, since you've been doing a small series on the Habsburgs, you could rank them as well, for that, I would rank them from when Albert I of Germany, who if I remember right, was the first Habsburg to rule Austria... all the way to Karl I of Austria, which would be a timespan of 1282 to 1918.
And then there's Hungary... from Saint Stephen to Louis II which would be 1000 - 1526... ( or 1570 if you would consider John I and John II to be legitimate rulers )
The romana should have settle the goth's on the most easter provinces, make it them figth the sassanids
Bro think he chud 💀 😭
I'm mostly just blame ricimer lol
...but enough about current events XD
The later Roman army was actually pretty good.
When hre emperor ranking..
Billion must oogaa boogaaa
It’s so over 🤦♂️
Székely András!!!! Hungarian!!!
TW Attila is a good game
Spectrum the Roman Empire fell in 1453, so it did last another millennium...
My take on the fall of the Western Empire is that it was a victim of its own success, and that European culture and civilization had evolved and diversified past the point where one pre-modern empire was capable of effectively governing it.
When you have a emperor like Honorius could you blame the empire for falling😅🤣🤣
Fix ur mic
Wasn't because Tiktok dances and intersectional feminism? 😮
Bearwhisperer this you?
now yuo see
It's gone.
in occidente cecidit
The Balkans again. What a shock :P
biggest L in the world see if they could fall anything can