⚔ SPQR Shop, excellent hand-crafted Roman rings and other items: spqrshop.com/?sca_ref=4770010.FM16q4LJHr Enter the code "Maiorianus" to get a 20% discount on every purchase. The ideal present for any fan of Rome 😉!
Alaric the king of the Goths was formerly a staunch ally but they felt that they had been exploited and used as fodder in the battlefield when they had fought for Rome. Corruption, decadence and lack of honour amongst their own elites was the greatest enemy of Rome.
@benjaminguilatcoiv "Corruption, decadence and lack of honor amongst their own elites was the greatest enemy of Rome." Exactly what's happening to the American Empire.
it wasn't just 'barbarian' allies who were exploited, the common people and citizens of Rome were impoverished by the predatory elite, coinage/money was continually debased ( familiar travails of failing societies, similar to these days ) someone said it: "eventually no one wanted to fight for such a system" ..for indeed who would bother?
Hey I got it right, Giseric. Always follow the money (and the food). When I learned how the Roman economy worked and the internal trade system, the question of "what doomed western Rome the most?" became a glaringly obvious answer IMO. Giseric taking north Africa was the equivalent of a modern country losing its main sources of crude oil, staple crop supply and a big chunk of its tax revenue, all in one single blow. No country that has ever existed could survive such a catastrophe.
People vastly over estimate the economics of Africa, except for Egypt. Even Egypt periodically starved so bad they ate their children! For some reason, one historian says so and all the rest who can't follow anything except each other in line, keep on doing this. Can no one ever read about tree rings, global warming and cooling, changing weather patterns and more? Gaul, Northern Italy, Austria, Hungary are the true breadbaskets of the ancient world, and that's why everyone, their uncles, cousins and friends got on their horses with a spear and tried to take those areas for 2,000 years. Not northern Africa.
@@MikeNoyb No, not really. Austria has too poor earth for widespread food supply, plus much of that earth is also poor in iodine. Northern Italy, yes, but it was bled dry. Gaul? Yes, the southern Regions, like Acquitaine, that is correct. Hungary? I would not say so. It was more Ukraine. Europe has rather bad ground for planting much, that is also the reason why so many peoples migrated from north to south. Migrations from east to west were mostly forced, for example the Goths were forced by the Huns to migrate west, without that forcing they would have stayed in Ukraine. Migrations from east to west found themselves in a trap, very early, but could not get out of that trap, like migrations to Ireland or the british Isles. Very poor countries for planting. That was the reason why those countries were among the poorest in Europe. That only changed with conquest and migration to the Americas. Northern Africa is just better, also the Levante, and then further east.
@@PandaPanda-ud4ne , I recall the Germans in the 40s hauling trainloads of fertile soil out of Ukraine back to Germany to improve their soil. Maybe the Huns missed their opportunity as soil exporters 😁
You should also visit the pyramid, if you can. Yes, there's a pyramid, there was also another but they paved that one over to make space for a new road. Rome is just this kind of weird city...
@@kaloarepo288 Not sure what the size has to do with this, but the fact they built the Non-Catholic Cemetery (because that's the Italian name) on the pyramid's side should say even more on Rome being Rome
@@lordMartiya I mentioned size because the person you recommended seeing it might expect a pyramid of Cheops and not a dwarf! I think it was the grave of a senator who had been governor of Egypt. Yes I know its called the cimitero acattolico but that's a bit negative isn't it ? It is where poets like Keats, Shelly and many other figures are buried mainly British, German and Scandinavian Protestant culturally any way but you have some Russian Orthodox there as well. Similar cemetery in Florence also called "acattolico'
@@kaloarepo288 It's not negative at all. Most of Rome's population is Catholic, and that's the cemetery where everyone that isn't and doesn't have their own cemetery is buried. If anything, calling it the Protestant Cemetery sounds like trying to exclude whoever isn't Protestant from their own graves.
Thanks so much for this introduction; Gaesaric is new to me. What an astounding character! I bought a book…can hardly wait to ‘sink my teeth’ into the history of this fascinating, yet obscure, major historical figure.
I'd like to elaborate on the term 'vandalism' becoming the common term of mindless mob destruction it has today. The word takes root from the Vandal tribe, but the path is not straight. It takes a detour in 17th century, at Charles Bridge in Prague. In late medieval and early modern period kingdoms and principalities had a habit of legitimizing and building prestige through their ancient past, imagined or real. For those countries that couldn't draw their root to Romans or Greeks (prime status,) the main inspiration was Tacitus and his _Germania,_ Swedish throne had built the case of Goths being their ancestors (a lucky guess, as contemporary science seems to lean) and Swedish kings had the tribe's name in their official litany. But question arose: what to do with the Finns? Finland, at least partly, had been a part of the realm from 13th century, but no Germanic tribe Tacitus mentioned could be linked to Finns even with very loose interpretation culture of Renaissance imagination. The answer came from the Danish, who - owning modern Estonia at times - had assumed the title king of Vandals, whose _urheimat_ was then believed to be.. thereabouts in the Baltic (an unlucku guess this time.) After conquering those parts in late 16th c. the Swedish kings had happily assumed the title but started to associate its nominate tribe more with the Finns. Come the Thirty Years' War, where Sweden is a major combatant and is assaulting the city of Prague in 1648 as to apply pressure to the ongoing peace negotiations. The 'new' side (West of River Vltava) is taken but citizens defend the bridge to a standstill. No worries; the new side is where the castle, imperial palace and various monasteries are located. The Swedes and Finns* loot the city very methodically (Queen Christina, a science & culture savant, had an extensive.. "wish list" of stuff she wanted from Prague.) The siege is halted by the piece of Westphalia, occasion which people of Prague decide to commemorate as a massive plaque in one of Charles Bridge's gates. There we can read, glorifying then-emperor Ferdinand III and how he "gave the golden peace and halted the rage of the Goths and the Vandals", thus portraying Finns as the Vandals who were 'at it' yet again. The use of vandals associated with mindless destruction & looting started to take traction from this event. Of course the learned audience versed with late Roman history knew about the original Vandal looting of Rome, but this later occasion gave it the real push of becoming staple in common imagination. I'm sorry for the long explanation. TL:DR - it's not the original looting of Rome that gave the meaning of 'vandalism' to mob destruction it has today, but an event in the end of Thirty Years' War. And the accusing finger is pointing at Finns. * There were a good deal mercenaries of various nationalities, e.g. commanding general being German, but there were Finnish troops taking part. Besides, it was the Swwdish kingdom that operated the attack.
I'm dubious that this was just one guy, the amount of victories/achievements and "insanely long life" (as you put it) of 87/88 years, almost unheard of in those days, make me think this could've been several people using the term 'Gaiseric' the way the Romans used the term 'Caesar'.
Well the difference is that for one, Caesar was a legendary figure and alot of people saw him as admirable. I doubt that Gaiseric was as common among the elite at the time.
And yet, the Vandals still treated Rome and the Romans better than they had so many others. Better than Rome treated Carthage, or Corinth, or Jerusalem and those are just the famous ones. The Roman population wasn't massacred or enslaved at large and those were common Roman practices. The Vandals got a bad rep, victims of propaganda.
False. Breaching Roman frontier defenses and then raiding, sacking and destroying Roman cities starting from Gaul, Spain and North Africa is not exactly better treatment. Raiding always implies taking slaves and loot then moving on. The Germanic tribes and Vandals practiced a robust slave owning culture just as much as the Romans. The Vandals are known for their sack of Rome in 455 CE, which included the capture of many slaves: Sack of Rome: The Vandals looted Rome for two weeks, destroying much of the city and taking shiploads of slaves to Africa. The Bishop of Carthage, Deogratias, bought the freedom of some of the Romans by selling his church's valuables. Slaves: The Vandals divided the slaves they captured between themselves.
Constantine the Great was a great Saint and a brave, capable and heroic ruler. He had his faults and limitations (I'm thinking of how he was manipulated by his wife into killing his own son under false accusations) but he was no sociopath.
Seriously though, you should consider doing something on the early goths in Ukraine, before they famously conquered Rome. Ermanaric, & related sagas. Jordanes, Ulfilas, Procopius, etc. Cool stuff.
You and Mike Duncan are my absolute favorit youtube Roman historians. I am personally a life longe scholar in all history. And your guys are had given me , fare more insigt and hints that the most. In the History of Rome. For that I say... Endless thanks, you true sage of the Roman history. For your kindness in sharing your wisdom with any of us. May all good come to you. Hil Odin! SKÅL!
Thx for teaching me about this guy Gaesaric definitely deserves to be credited as being a brilliant commander like Justinian and Mehmed II or Suleiman the magnificent or Hannibal or scipo Gaesaric succeeded where Hannibal failed defeating and destroying Rome .
Gaiseric a handsome German is a good choice. However I think he is outdone by the Roman princess who invited Attila to come into Italy to rescue her.Attila seized on this as a marriage invitation and promptly invaded Italy causing havoc. This was a few years before Gaiseric’s invasion.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if that whole series of events was actually ORCHESTRATED by Gaiseric and his son Huneric. Remember, Huneric was actually in Rome at that time due to being promised marriage to Valentinian's daughter, Eudocia. He could EASILY have persuaded Princess Honoria to reach out to Attila, and if that was the case, he more than likely did so on Gaiseric's orders.
Geiseric was far more dangerous to the Romans than Attila or Alaric because he held the Western Empire's richest province which produced most of its grain and without it long-term recovery was not possible.
I tend to think no one was more dangerous to the Romans than .... the _Romans_ !! Their favorite national pastime of fighting endless civil wars and constantly overthrowing their emperors would sometimes get in the way of running a tight empire.
So Genseric would have been born when Theodosius was still the emperor of the entire Roman Empire and only died during the reign of Emperor Zeno. A truly long life.
Love from Taipei. And we, a learning society, must understand that revisionist history is no answer to a neighboring brutal leader. He with all his lifetime will look for one more chance of invasion and conquer.
I have 2 questions. 1., What did these "barbarians" so much better than the barbarians of earlier times, that they were able to be so often victorious over the roman army ? What changed ? 2. The vandals conquered this and that (Sardinia, Corsica, Malta, etc), ok, but how was he able to keep these territories occupied ? I mean the vandals was not a very big nation. How they got so many troops, to hold North Africa and all that islands ?
Not an expert, but my thoughts are 1. The tribes past the Danube over time advanced technologically and organizationally. They adopted Roman ways of warfare at the same time as Rome itself was seeing a cultural and political decline. These later tribes were also probably larger, being amalgamations of former tribes and even non-Germanic peoples. 2. They held territory because once you remove the political/military class, there’s little incentive for the vast majority of people to do anything about it. Most people by this time would have been essentially serfs, used to an exploitative and corrupt system. Often they would welcome invaders in the hopes that things might change for the better; some might have joined them in the hopes of improving their situation through plunder and taking land.
The Roman culture was a militarized one during the early republic and early Empire, whereby, a large portion of the adult male population were expected to be a formidable warrior in the battlefield, this means that when the Romans were beaten in open battlefield, they could reach to their pool of warrior like citizens to recoup their losses and continue the war on their enemies, this was why the early the Republic and early Empire saw the Romans constantly pushing for decisive engagements in open battle. The Late Roman and Byzantine era on the other had, saw the citizens become much more "soft," the average adult male no longer saw it as their duty to harden themselves for war and instead they were much more content in just paying their taxes and focusing on their line of work, as a result, the Empire could no longer rely on their previous citizen/soldier model and instead they had to train highly professional soldiers (the comitatenses) which were generally fewer in numbers but very capable of combating armies in open field and the poorly paid, more numerous, second rate troops the limitanei who generally fought in fortified positions, stop small to medium scale and raids and delayed invading forces for the comitatenses to show up. Now as you can see,these version of the army was much more brittle, while effective, when the comitatenses did lose, they were very hard to replace which was why the ERE/Byzantines had a reputation of bribing their enemies and playing diplomacy first before engaging in battle, the just did not have the luxury the early Empire had and decisive defeats in open field often resulted in devastating consequences, they just cant throw armies anymore like they did against Hannibal.
Well unlike the Romans the Barbarians retained their warrior culture, there as a much higher proportion of warriors in the Gothic population compare to the Roman population of the 5th century. After much of the Western Comitatenses were wiped out at Frigidus by the Eastern Romans, the Western government found that hiring barbarians were much cheaper than training and paying new Comitatenses units, they were also plentiful and were arguably just as effective when properly equip with Roman weapons, so instead of rebuilding their army from their own native population the West instead became increasingly reliant on german mercenaries with questionable loyalty.
@@ronb7189That being the key issue there. Questionable loyalty, and paid loyalty doesn’t deliver the same results as citizens fighting for their own gains and country. At this point in time, the Roman Empire was so large and wealthy, that the complete cultural change of Roman society had overtaken their society, originally they were a pious,relatively unknown country that had to prove itself to the rest of the world through conquest and growth, where the only way to raise an army was through themselves, and fight for themselves. Once they became large, and rich, their new god was gold, and they were afraid to lose their cushy new Roman lives in riches. A complete 180 of values, and priorities in essence destroyed Rome. The creation, and destruction of an empire, the very same thing that is going on in America these days.
I think the thing to keep in mind is that the Vandals and groups like them did what they did with comparatively few numbers (80,000 Vandals vs 20-30 million Western Romans), and this speaks largely to the financial troubles (and costly Civil Wars) that had beset the Western Roman Empire at the time. Two centuries, or even a century earlier the Romans would have handled the Vandals like they did all other Germanic groups and invaders up to that point. Its a lesson that keeps getting repeated throughout history i.e., the eventual bankruptcy of empires.
I agree, and what was the thing about chess champions being psychopaths? Is this true? It’s not obvious being a great strategist means you’re a psychopath.
@SimonORorke I think that chess champions are necessarily psychopaths. Gary Kasparov for example, who is hoping for a better Russia, and is against the war i. Ukraine. But the psycopathic mentality might be useful sometimes as an intellectual tool.
The Vandals (Germans) and the Alans (Persian) were raiding the Iberian Peninsula, but lacked the political ability to establish their own kingdom. The Suebians, on the other hand, immediately reached an agreement if the Gallaecian elites, thus founding the first feudal kingdom in Europe (that soon after would become the first Christian kingdom in Europe). Note that the first Suebians arrived to Gallaecia by sea, presumably hired by the Gallaecians as mercenaries.The Gallaecian and the Suevi also cut a non-aggression deal with the Vandals and the Alans. The Vandal/Alan coalition was free to raid Iberia for as long as they did not attack the Suebian kingdom in Gallaecia. The Vandals initially respected the terms of the agreement, but then tried to take advantage from the first succession crisis of the Suebian monarchy to raid Gallaecia. However, they were defeated and persecuted up to modern Seville, where they were forced by the Gallaecian-Suebian to cross the strait into Africa.
true. But many Germanic/Nordic men hade those kind of names. Alarik, Erik, Gaeserik, Frederik, Ulrik etc.. Gallic/Celtic languages are more closely related to Italic languages like Latin. Anyway since they are all Indo-European they are somewhat similar and should resemble each other a lot. (Maybe I’m just stating things you already knew, in that case I apologize)
Gaiseric & his Vandals were certainly a major factor in the destruction of the western Empire. But I think he got a lot of secret support from an even worse villain: Ricimer. Ricimer (I suspect) passed crucial information to Gaiseric which enabled him to thwart more than one Roman attempt to re-conquer North Africa. E.g. It seems a little too convenient that the Vandal fleet showed up on the east coast of Spain to destroy the fleet that Majorian had assembled there, while Majorian was away recruiting soldiers for the invasion of Africa. Ricimer was worse than Gaiseric, for he was (in addition to everything else) a traitor, whereas Gaiseric was not.
The 1527 sack of Rome by the Imperial Troops of Charles V (Mainly German and Spanish with some Italians) was probably the worst in history. Nothing was spared whether churches, monasteries or noble residences.The pope himself had to flee to the Castel San Angelo fortress from a covered walkway. The devastating sack put an end to the High Renaissance and was described by artist Benvenuto Cellini. A lot of the German troops were inspired in their rage by the new Lutheran movement.
Based on the title, I thought it was going to be about Valentian III, who according to tradition killed his famous 'Last of the Romans' generalissimo Aetius with a sword. Wrong guess. :)
15:01 "we don't know why" - isn't the why religion? He ruled the world's leading Arian state, so of course he would fight the world's leading catholic state.
If Geiseric would have been a Roman Emperor, then he would have been praised by Sebastian as the most brilliant and successful ruler/general since Caesar or Trajan, or even Alexander the Great. But hey, he was a Vandal ruler, so he was only a genius evil psychopath.
I like your stories, but I have one remark: in the pictures you show all sorts of murderers and bastards look like Hollywood's heroes with manly, noble faces. After the invention of photography and cinema, we have access to real images of all the ghouls who killed millions of people and they all have the faces of scoundrels. I'm pretty sure Gaiseric too
The only way one would save the Roman Empire is to kick Commodus out. At this point, the Western Roman Empire was far from saving. Don't understand why people still think the Western Roman Empire would be saved at 430s when it was not the same anymore?
I'm so over the whole roman thing.. mostly because of what Europe has become now. Who cares about their past if they themselves don't bother to respect it
wester roman empire, eastern lasted another 1000 years or so. and it wasnt a single person or event that ended it but many. vandals just sped up the process.
Heheheh.. So just because Geyseric beat you Roman dwarves at your own game, he's automatically called a psycho. That's funny. Have you ever pondered the brutality of the Romans themselves against conquered peoples? I call him Karma.
Yeah, that's the annoying thing with a number of hardcore Romaboos. They rant against anyone who got the better of their heroes, conveniently forgetting that the Romans didn't build the _Imperium Romanum_ by dishing out red roses and boxes of chocolates. It's a case of "Vae Victis." Gaiseric was a legend and he was able to do what Hannibal Barca couldn't. Using Carthage as his base, he brought unto Rome death by a thousand cuts.
Seriously though, you should consider doing something on the early goths in Ukraine, before they famously conquered Rome. Ermanaric, & related sagas. Jordanes, Ulfilas, Procopius, etc. Cool stuff.
Placing the Vandals in Roman Pannonia in the 4th century is a mistake! Pannonia from Tisa is meant, not Pannonia from the Roman province. Until the case of the Goths, after Adrianople, the barbarians moved into the Empire were not left in their tribal form as federates. The Vandals were outside the empire so they moved along the limes, yes not from the empire, so that they could cross the limes again. The Huns in the years 400-406 still did not lay hands on the Roman side of Pannonia!. Yes some Vandals were moved into the Empire after their defeat in 270, but not at all in a tribal form that would last a century. The tribal mass of the Vandals remained outside the limes in and around the Pannonian plain.
⚔ SPQR Shop, excellent hand-crafted Roman rings and other items:
spqrshop.com/?sca_ref=4770010.FM16q4LJHr
Enter the code "Maiorianus" to get a 20% discount on every purchase. The ideal present for any fan of Rome 😉!
There's the word "vandalism", meaning causing great damage, but there's no word "hunnism" or "visigothism". That speaks volumes.
I guess Geyseric is the reason why
There’s Gothic, for what that’s worth.
Alaric the king of the Goths was formerly a staunch ally but they felt that they had been exploited and used as fodder in the battlefield when they had fought for Rome. Corruption, decadence and lack of honour amongst their own elites was the greatest enemy of Rome.
@benjaminguilatcoiv "Corruption, decadence and lack of honor amongst their own elites was the greatest enemy of Rome."
Exactly what's happening to the American Empire.
it wasn't just 'barbarian' allies who were exploited, the common people and citizens of Rome were impoverished by the predatory elite, coinage/money was continually debased ( familiar travails of failing societies, similar to these days ) someone said it: "eventually no one wanted to fight for such a system" ..for indeed who would bother?
I love your relentless passion for Roman history.
Because Roman history is relentlessly interesting.
Hey I got it right, Giseric. Always follow the money (and the food). When I learned how the Roman economy worked and the internal trade system, the question of "what doomed western Rome the most?" became a glaringly obvious answer IMO. Giseric taking north Africa was the equivalent of a modern country losing its main sources of crude oil, staple crop supply and a big chunk of its tax revenue, all in one single blow. No country that has ever existed could survive such a catastrophe.
People vastly over estimate the economics of Africa, except for Egypt. Even Egypt periodically starved so bad they ate their children!
For some reason, one historian says so and all the rest who can't follow anything except each other in line, keep on doing this. Can no one ever read about tree rings, global warming and cooling, changing weather patterns and more?
Gaul, Northern Italy, Austria, Hungary are the true breadbaskets of the ancient world, and that's why everyone, their uncles, cousins and friends got on their horses with a spear and tried to take those areas for 2,000 years. Not northern Africa.
And then the next few subsequent invasions to retake it were thwarted until decades later.
@@MikeNoyb No, not really. Austria has too poor earth for widespread food supply, plus much of that earth is also poor in iodine. Northern Italy, yes, but it was bled dry. Gaul? Yes, the southern Regions, like Acquitaine, that is correct. Hungary? I would not say so. It was more Ukraine. Europe has rather bad ground for planting much, that is also the reason why so many peoples migrated from north to south. Migrations from east to west were mostly forced, for example the Goths were forced by the Huns to migrate west, without that forcing they would have stayed in Ukraine. Migrations from east to west found themselves in a trap, very early, but could not get out of that trap, like migrations to Ireland or the british Isles. Very poor countries for planting. That was the reason why those countries were among the poorest in Europe. That only changed with conquest and migration to the Americas. Northern Africa is just better, also the Levante, and then further east.
@@PandaPanda-ud4ne , I recall the Germans in the 40s hauling trainloads of fertile soil out of Ukraine back to Germany to improve their soil. Maybe the Huns missed their opportunity as soil exporters 😁
Already watched, but gave it a thumbs up and commenting to help the re-upload.
This is the ad I can accept: the channel about Rome and the ad along the same lines, I'm rather likely to fall for it
I love your storytelling! Brilliant!
I am a Canadian currently in Rome for the first time now! Just saw the forum and collosium
You should also visit the pyramid, if you can.
Yes, there's a pyramid, there was also another but they paved that one over to make space for a new road. Rome is just this kind of weird city...
@@lordMartiya Cestius is tiny though -next to the Protestant cemetery where many English literary figures buried!
@@kaloarepo288 Not sure what the size has to do with this, but the fact they built the Non-Catholic Cemetery (because that's the Italian name) on the pyramid's side should say even more on Rome being Rome
@@lordMartiya I mentioned size because the person you recommended seeing it might expect a pyramid of Cheops and not a dwarf! I think it was the grave of a senator who had been governor of Egypt. Yes I know its called the cimitero acattolico but that's a bit negative isn't it ? It is where poets like Keats, Shelly and many other figures are buried mainly British, German and Scandinavian Protestant culturally any way but you have some Russian Orthodox there as well. Similar cemetery in Florence also called "acattolico'
@@kaloarepo288 It's not negative at all. Most of Rome's population is Catholic, and that's the cemetery where everyone that isn't and doesn't have their own cemetery is buried.
If anything, calling it the Protestant Cemetery sounds like trying to exclude whoever isn't Protestant from their own graves.
Gaesaric lowkey looking like Sean Connery
I thought it was Ricimer.
So did I....
👍🌿😆🌿
me too
Just as diabolical. He has an earlier video on Ricimer
Ricimir from inside
Gaiseric from outside
Thanks so much for this introduction; Gaesaric is new to me. What an astounding character!
I bought a book…can hardly wait to ‘sink my teeth’ into the history of this fascinating, yet obscure, major historical figure.
I'd like to elaborate on the term 'vandalism' becoming the common term of mindless mob destruction it has today. The word takes root from the Vandal tribe, but the path is not straight. It takes a detour in 17th century, at Charles Bridge in Prague.
In late medieval and early modern period kingdoms and principalities had a habit of legitimizing and building prestige through their ancient past, imagined or real. For those countries that couldn't draw their root to Romans or Greeks (prime status,) the main inspiration was Tacitus and his _Germania,_ Swedish throne had built the case of Goths being their ancestors (a lucky guess, as contemporary science seems to lean) and Swedish kings had the tribe's name in their official litany.
But question arose: what to do with the Finns? Finland, at least partly, had been a part of the realm from 13th century, but no Germanic tribe Tacitus mentioned could be linked to Finns even with very loose interpretation culture of Renaissance imagination. The answer came from the Danish, who - owning modern Estonia at times - had assumed the title king of Vandals, whose _urheimat_ was then believed to be.. thereabouts in the Baltic (an unlucku guess this time.) After conquering those parts in late 16th c. the Swedish kings had happily assumed the title but started to associate its nominate tribe more with the Finns.
Come the Thirty Years' War, where Sweden is a major combatant and is assaulting the city of Prague in 1648 as to apply pressure to the ongoing peace negotiations. The 'new' side (West of River Vltava) is taken but citizens defend the bridge to a standstill. No worries; the new side is where the castle, imperial palace and various monasteries are located. The Swedes and Finns* loot the city very methodically (Queen Christina, a science & culture savant, had an extensive.. "wish list" of stuff she wanted from Prague.) The siege is halted by the piece of Westphalia, occasion which people of Prague decide to commemorate as a massive plaque in one of Charles Bridge's gates. There we can read, glorifying then-emperor Ferdinand III and how he "gave the golden peace and halted the rage of the Goths and the Vandals", thus portraying Finns as the Vandals who were 'at it' yet again.
The use of vandals associated with mindless destruction & looting started to take traction from this event. Of course the learned audience versed with late Roman history knew about the original Vandal looting of Rome, but this later occasion gave it the real push of becoming staple in common imagination.
I'm sorry for the long explanation. TL:DR - it's not the original looting of Rome that gave the meaning of 'vandalism' to mob destruction it has today, but an event in the end of Thirty Years' War. And the accusing finger is pointing at Finns.
* There were a good deal mercenaries of various nationalities, e.g. commanding general being German, but there were Finnish troops taking part. Besides, it was the Swwdish kingdom that operated the attack.
Wow! I never knew that part of the story... fascinating! Thanks!
At this point I'm convinced that Gaiseric was possessed by Hannibal's spirit 😂😂
And Hamilcar's. And Hasdrubal's... and the two Shapurs'
And maybe even Pyrrhus's
I'm dubious that this was just one guy, the amount of victories/achievements and "insanely long life" (as you put it) of 87/88 years, almost unheard of in those days, make me think this could've been several people using the term 'Gaiseric' the way the Romans used the term 'Caesar'.
Well the difference is that for one, Caesar was a legendary figure and alot of people saw him as admirable. I doubt that Gaiseric was as common among the elite at the time.
12:40
'Vandalism' isn't the only legacy. The name 'Andalusia' is also from them.
Yup. The moors called Hispania "Al-Andalus" after the Vandals.
And yet, the Vandals still treated Rome and the Romans better than they had so many others. Better than Rome treated Carthage, or Corinth, or Jerusalem and those are just the famous ones. The Roman population wasn't massacred or enslaved at large and those were common Roman practices. The Vandals got a bad rep, victims of propaganda.
False. Breaching Roman frontier defenses and then raiding, sacking and destroying Roman cities starting from Gaul, Spain and North Africa is not exactly better treatment. Raiding always implies taking slaves and loot then moving on.
The Germanic tribes and Vandals practiced a robust slave owning culture just as much as the Romans. The Vandals are known for their sack of Rome in 455 CE, which included the capture of many slaves:
Sack of Rome: The Vandals looted Rome for two weeks, destroying much of the city and taking shiploads of slaves to Africa. The Bishop of Carthage, Deogratias, bought the freedom of some of the Romans by selling his church's valuables.
Slaves: The Vandals divided the slaves they captured between themselves.
I was thinking you'll name Ricimer or Constantine the Great ;)
I thought it would be Ricimer. 🧐
Odoacer?
So did I XD😂
Constantine the Great was a great Saint and a brave, capable and heroic ruler. He had his faults and limitations (I'm thinking of how he was manipulated by his wife into killing his own son under false accusations) but he was no sociopath.
@@AlexT-sy6nmmy guy he was 100% a sociopath
Gaiseric is a good choice ,but I give it to Ricimer. Difference was Ricimer did the damage on the inside.
Seriously though, you should consider doing something on the early goths in Ukraine, before they famously conquered Rome. Ermanaric, & related sagas. Jordanes, Ulfilas, Procopius, etc. Cool stuff.
Comment for material spread! Good job!
You and Mike Duncan are my absolute favorit youtube Roman historians.
I am personally a life longe scholar in all history.
And your guys are had given me , fare more insigt and hints that the most.
In the History of Rome.
For that I say... Endless thanks, you true sage of the Roman history.
For your kindness in sharing your wisdom with any of us.
May all good come to you.
Hil Odin! SKÅL!
Thx for teaching me about this guy Gaesaric definitely deserves to be credited as being a brilliant commander like Justinian and Mehmed II or Suleiman the magnificent or Hannibal or scipo Gaesaric succeeded where Hannibal failed defeating and destroying Rome .
Gaiseric a handsome German is a good choice. However I think he is outdone by the Roman princess who invited Attila to come into Italy to rescue her.Attila seized on this as a marriage invitation and promptly invaded Italy causing havoc. This was a few years before Gaiseric’s invasion.
Gaiseric got the same offer a couple years later tho.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if that whole series of events was actually ORCHESTRATED by Gaiseric and his son Huneric. Remember, Huneric was actually in Rome at that time due to being promised marriage to Valentinian's daughter, Eudocia. He could EASILY have persuaded Princess Honoria to reach out to Attila, and if that was the case, he more than likely did so on Gaiseric's orders.
@@kevinnorwood8782 My boy I think you are onto something
For once Ricimer didn't take all the blame by Sebastian ;-)
Actually when someone destroys something, it should be “Hey, some kids Romed the cemetery last night…”
Congratulations on this video
Yes. And once again all this was made easy by the lack of cohesion and unity among Romans. These are very important values for every state.
Great video.
Geiseric was far more dangerous to the Romans than Attila or Alaric because he held the Western Empire's richest province which produced most of its grain and without it long-term recovery was not possible.
I tend to think no one was more dangerous to the Romans than .... the _Romans_ !! Their favorite national pastime of fighting endless civil wars and constantly overthrowing their emperors would sometimes get in the way of running a tight empire.
So Genseric would have been born when Theodosius was still the emperor of the entire Roman Empire and only died during the reign of Emperor Zeno. A truly long life.
👍⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐EXCELLENT AS ALWAYS, THANK YOU!
He was energetic and adaptable.
The most egregious person who brought down any interest in Roman "history", or, fake history, is Denzel Washington as a Roman emperor in Gladiator 2.
When I was a young punk rocker, the club would light up when Urban Struggle came on.
Another interesting video.
Love from Taipei. And we, a learning society, must understand that revisionist history is no answer to a neighboring brutal leader. He with all his lifetime will look for one more chance of invasion and conquer.
Damn dude cool hair
He's extremely handsome
Ricimir, Honorius are my first two first two shout-outs for Rone's disaster
I have 2 questions.
1., What did these "barbarians" so much better than the barbarians of earlier times, that they were able to be so often victorious over the roman army ? What changed ?
2. The vandals conquered this and that (Sardinia, Corsica, Malta, etc), ok, but how was he able to keep these territories occupied ? I mean the vandals was not a very big nation. How they got so many troops, to hold North Africa and all that islands ?
Great questions
Not an expert, but my thoughts are 1. The tribes past the Danube over time advanced technologically and organizationally. They adopted Roman ways of warfare at the same time as Rome itself was seeing a cultural and political decline. These later tribes were also probably larger, being amalgamations of former tribes and even non-Germanic peoples. 2. They held territory because once you remove the political/military class, there’s little incentive for the vast majority of people to do anything about it. Most people by this time would have been essentially serfs, used to an exploitative and corrupt system. Often they would welcome invaders in the hopes that things might change for the better; some might have joined them in the hopes of improving their situation through plunder and taking land.
The Roman culture was a militarized one during the early republic and early Empire, whereby, a large portion of the adult male population were expected to be a formidable warrior in the battlefield, this means that when the Romans were beaten in open battlefield, they could reach to their pool of warrior like citizens to recoup their losses and continue the war on their enemies, this was why the early the Republic and early Empire saw the Romans constantly pushing for decisive engagements in open battle.
The Late Roman and Byzantine era on the other had, saw the citizens become much more "soft," the average adult male no longer saw it as their duty to harden themselves for war and instead they were much more content in just paying their taxes and focusing on their line of work, as a result, the Empire could no longer rely on their previous citizen/soldier model and instead they had to train highly professional soldiers (the comitatenses) which were generally fewer in numbers but very capable of combating armies in open field and the poorly paid, more numerous, second rate troops the limitanei who generally fought in fortified positions, stop small to medium scale and raids and delayed invading forces for the comitatenses to show up. Now as you can see,these version of the army was much more brittle, while effective, when the comitatenses did lose, they were very hard to replace which was why the ERE/Byzantines had a reputation of bribing their enemies and playing diplomacy first before engaging in battle, the just did not have the luxury the early Empire had and decisive defeats in open field often resulted in devastating consequences, they just cant throw armies anymore like they did against Hannibal.
Well unlike the Romans the Barbarians retained their warrior culture, there as a much higher proportion of warriors in the Gothic population compare to the Roman population of the 5th century. After much of the Western Comitatenses were wiped out at Frigidus by the Eastern Romans, the Western government found that hiring barbarians were much cheaper than training and paying new Comitatenses units, they were also plentiful and were arguably just as effective when properly equip with Roman weapons, so instead of rebuilding their army from their own native population the West instead became increasingly reliant on german mercenaries with questionable loyalty.
@@ronb7189That being the key issue there. Questionable loyalty, and paid loyalty doesn’t deliver the same results as citizens fighting for their own gains and country. At this point in time, the Roman Empire was so large and wealthy, that the complete cultural change of Roman society had overtaken their society, originally they were a pious,relatively unknown country that had to prove itself to the rest of the world through conquest and growth, where the only way to raise an army was through themselves, and fight for themselves. Once they became large, and rich, their new god was gold, and they were afraid to lose their cushy new Roman lives in riches.
A complete 180 of values, and priorities in essence destroyed Rome. The creation, and destruction of an empire, the very same thing that is going on in America these days.
The "alani" were no germanic tribe, they were from the caucasus.
I think the thing to keep in mind is that the Vandals and groups like them did what they did with comparatively few numbers (80,000 Vandals vs 20-30 million Western Romans), and this speaks largely to the financial troubles (and costly Civil Wars) that had beset the Western Roman Empire at the time. Two centuries, or even a century earlier the Romans would have handled the Vandals like they did all other Germanic groups and invaders up to that point. Its a lesson that keeps getting repeated throughout history i.e., the eventual bankruptcy of empires.
Nor Atilla... nor Alaric... nor RICIMER... no. Giseric was the TRUE BLIGHT of the Western Roman Empire... AMAZING
How/ why is Gyseric a psycho? He doesn’t sound any different from the Romans when they were conquering.
I agree, and what was the thing about chess champions being psychopaths? Is this true? It’s not obvious being a great strategist means you’re a psychopath.
@SimonORorke I think that chess champions are necessarily psychopaths. Gary Kasparov for example, who is hoping for a better Russia, and is against the war i. Ukraine. But the psycopathic mentality might be useful sometimes as an intellectual tool.
Agree. I don’t see the connection either. Smart does not equal lack of empathy.
The Vandals (Germans) and the Alans (Persian) were raiding the Iberian Peninsula, but lacked the political ability to establish their own kingdom. The Suebians, on the other hand, immediately reached an agreement if the Gallaecian elites, thus founding the first feudal kingdom in Europe (that soon after would become the first Christian kingdom in Europe). Note that the first Suebians arrived to Gallaecia by sea, presumably hired by the Gallaecians as mercenaries.The Gallaecian and the Suevi also cut a non-aggression deal with the Vandals and the Alans. The Vandal/Alan coalition was free to raid Iberia for as long as they did not attack the Suebian kingdom in Gallaecia. The Vandals initially respected the terms of the agreement, but then tried to take advantage from the first succession crisis of the Suebian monarchy to raid Gallaecia. However, they were defeated and persecuted up to modern Seville, where they were forced by the Gallaecian-Suebian to cross the strait into Africa.
He was brilliant
"Gaesaric" -- that name looks astoundingly GALLIC. The "ric" suffix looks like "rix" as in Vercingetorix, king.
true. But many Germanic/Nordic men hade those kind of names. Alarik, Erik, Gaeserik, Frederik, Ulrik etc..
Gallic/Celtic languages are more closely related to Italic languages like Latin.
Anyway since they are all Indo-European they are somewhat similar and should resemble each other a lot.
(Maybe I’m just stating things you already knew, in that case I apologize)
@AlltNorrOmAleArNorrland perhaps each of those names retain "rix" as the suffix.
Bob Dylan summed it up nicely. “The pump don’t work ‘cause the vandals took the handles.”
I think Ricimer was the guy who sealed Rome's fate.
Gaiseric & his Vandals were certainly a major factor in the destruction of the western Empire. But I think he got a lot of secret support from an even worse villain: Ricimer. Ricimer (I suspect) passed crucial information to Gaiseric which enabled him to thwart more than one Roman attempt to re-conquer North Africa. E.g. It seems a little too convenient that the Vandal fleet showed up on the east coast of Spain to destroy the fleet that Majorian had assembled there, while Majorian was away recruiting soldiers for the invasion of Africa. Ricimer was worse than Gaiseric, for he was (in addition to everything else) a traitor, whereas Gaiseric was not.
I though that video was going to be about Ricimer.
The 1527 sack of Rome by the Imperial Troops of Charles V (Mainly German and Spanish with some Italians) was probably the worst in history. Nothing was spared whether churches, monasteries or noble residences.The pope himself had to flee to the Castel San Angelo fortress from a covered walkway. The devastating sack put an end to the High Renaissance and was described by artist Benvenuto Cellini. A lot of the German troops were inspired in their rage by the new Lutheran movement.
Was Gaisarik more psycopatic than Flavius Theodosius?
I used to have hair like that.
You really look like Peter Tezla!
Based on the title, I thought it was going to be about Valentian III, who according to tradition killed his famous 'Last of the Romans' generalissimo Aetius with a sword. Wrong guess. :)
So this is the "Berserk" connection.
15:01 "we don't know why" - isn't the why religion? He ruled the world's leading Arian state, so of course he would fight the world's leading catholic state.
He could have conquered it, but he didn't. That's why we don't know why.
@@lordMartiya wow its like you have no reading comprehension at all.
@@klalakomacoi I know that's your problem.
Why was this taken down and reuploaded?
Did the West Roman Empire have no access to loans from somewhere?
I also thought ruci😊mer
If Geiseric would have been a Roman Emperor, then he would have been praised by Sebastian as the most brilliant and successful ruler/general since Caesar or Trajan, or even Alexander the Great. But hey, he was a Vandal ruler, so he was only a genius evil psychopath.
Fun fact Vandals settled in Northern Africa 😂
I like your stories, but I have one remark: in the pictures you show all sorts of murderers and bastards look like Hollywood's heroes with manly, noble faces. After the invention of photography and cinema, we have access to real images of all the ghouls who killed millions of people and they all have the faces of scoundrels. I'm pretty sure Gaiseric too
The only way one would save the Roman Empire is to kick Commodus out. At this point, the Western Roman Empire was far from saving. Don't understand why people still think the Western Roman Empire would be saved at 430s when it was not the same anymore?
Wow, someone could tell the whole fall of (Western) Rome through his life story.
There was no Western Roman Empire: There was only one Roman Empire.
Odoacer was subservient to Constantinople.
I'm so over the whole roman thing.. mostly because of what Europe has become now. Who cares about their past if they themselves don't bother to respect it
Enemies of the Western Roman Empire Would Be Attila, the Hun, enemy of the two Roman empires, Genseric And Alaric the Great.
The Alani were not Germanic, but Persian. Their culture was still Indo-European and, therefore, not too distant from the Germanic.
RDS....Rome Derangement Syndrome....
Seems familiar somehow.
What was up with Augustine & hippos? Or was that just a euphemism?
Just have to see how destructive people are nowadays called vandals. Way to go, psycho 😂
Biggest external enemy: Geiseric
Biggest internal enemy: Ricimer
*Both Germans*
Before watching this I am going to guess it is Ricimer...
damnit I was wrong
Ricimer?
So the Vandals had beem the good guys
❤❤❤
Why did I never hear about this guy?
wester roman empire, eastern lasted another 1000 years or so. and it wasnt a single person or event that ended it but many. vandals just sped up the process.
All the Germans wanted is land and good weather.
Explains why my Moroccan African wife has German DNA.
If the germanics didnt migrate until Iberia, they never would be Westerners, but Slavs.
Romans were unlucky man
👍👍👍
Heheheh..
So just because Geyseric beat you Roman dwarves at your own game, he's automatically called a psycho.
That's funny.
Have you ever pondered the brutality of the Romans themselves against conquered peoples?
I call him Karma.
Yeah, that's the annoying thing with a number of hardcore Romaboos. They rant against anyone who got the better of their heroes, conveniently forgetting that the Romans didn't build the _Imperium Romanum_ by dishing out red roses and boxes of chocolates. It's a case of "Vae Victis." Gaiseric was a legend and he was able to do what Hannibal Barca couldn't. Using Carthage as his base, he brought unto Rome death by a thousand cuts.
The larp becomes too strong@@septimiusseverus343
did you say 500 greco-roman civilians were executed for pure evil ?
Alans were iranic, not germanic!
If you you would shave, you would be looking like a true roman.
The Western Roman Empire lasted til the 500s culturally
You keep irresponsibly using the term"psychopathic " to describe Gaiseric.
So he wasn't homersexual? I always thought it was pronounced GAYseric, because his real name was Eric, but he was the gays' Eric.
Seriously though, you should consider doing something on the early goths in Ukraine, before they famously conquered Rome. Ermanaric, & related sagas. Jordanes, Ulfilas, Procopius, etc. Cool stuff.
Nah Constantine imo.
I was expecting Ricimer... But this guy is just as bad.
Maiorianus face reveal 😮
🦅👍N°LXVII🦅
Go Vandals
Why did he take Sardinia? He just liked fish?
Netanyahu?
Placing the Vandals in Roman Pannonia in the 4th century is a mistake! Pannonia from Tisa is meant, not Pannonia from the Roman province. Until the case of the Goths, after Adrianople, the barbarians moved into the Empire were not left in their tribal form as federates. The Vandals were outside the empire so they moved along the limes, yes not from the empire, so that they could cross the limes again. The Huns in the years 400-406 still did not lay hands on the Roman side of Pannonia!.
Yes some Vandals were moved into the Empire after their defeat in 270, but not at all in a tribal form that would last a century. The tribal mass of the Vandals remained outside the limes in and around the Pannonian plain.
I was 100% sure of Ricimer hahaha