we tried (greek here, one of the east tribes), but we didnt suceed because the plague hits harder big cties compared to smaller-semi nomadic cities-villages, therefore east stayed east It's wrong, east TRIED, they were not succefull-they could not help anymore, but they tried
u will see later in history why the byzantine population died and fought as "antiwest/east", east never recognised the new west status quo, k today there is no point of saying something against west, but eastern romans were friends with latins, but latins fell under the controll of the new tribes, the economic interests of the "common sea" became "the annoying empire that stops our decent in the hot seas" Later the united west (when they were united), they fought the ottomans for the same reason "the annoying empire that stops our decent in the hot seas"
the ROMAN POPULATION remained ANTInorth, the elites were the problem, roman pop it's like saying today "the west europeans", but if u lose somehow by russia the europe will change ( this cant happen today atleast), the east pop didnt embrace germanics ever, ofc after some point the west could not push them back, but the real reason why the east never accept west as population was the "germanic part" most propably The population of the "union' always were annoyed by north, but elites are different entities EVEN indoeuropeans came by the steppe, but the eras of the steppe coming when natural disasters hit, disasters on old eras hit harder the advanced, in industrial era is different story, but on these eras nomads-semi nomads take the upper hand, it's not like we had "weak people", u just lose ur capacity
The fall of the Western Roman Empire was not only the fault of the barbarians and civil wars, but also of Byzantium. Since the Eastern Roman Empire interfered in the political affairs of the West and there was no stability there, a good example is the emperors John and Glycerius. They were both good rulers for the Western Romans, but the Byzantines were angry that they were not appointed emperors by them, although they both wanted good neighborly relations with the Greeks of Constantinople. It is very symbolic that the emperor of the East Zeno, who abolished the title of emperor of the West in 480 after the death of Julius Nepos, was buried alive as punishment for this stupid act!
In reality, the best shot at reclaiming western territory was under Majorian. Had Ricimer not been the criminal traitor he turned out to be, Majorian could have made a difference that lasted. But it is as you say, a confluence of events that made the fall of the west almost inevitable. Thank you so much for your brilliant insights and videos!
With what army thou, the army Majorian used mostly consisted of Barbarian federates from the Danube, he managed to defeat the Suebi, Burgandians and Visigoths with this formidable army but he didn't inflict a significant defeat on any of this tribes, they still held considerable power in Gaul and Hispania, his conquest was all made "on paper" as he was not able to properly integrate or tax this Germanic war chiefs. Instead these Germanic tribes bide their time, they knew Majorians goal was North Africa so they were letting Majorian sail with his army to North Africa and make said army the Vandals problem, but his expensive fleet was destroyed before he can even sail and the Senators and Italian ruling class who bankroll his expedition was very, very upset. What little wealth Italy had was gone, retaining Majorian's "paper conquest" in Hispania and Gaul was impossible without a proper army while being surrounded by multiple Babrbarian tribes that still had a strong powerbase and nothing was even done to weaken the Vandals who are still able to raid Italy. Ricimer was not a mustache twirling villain but he was Majorian political rival at this point who viewed Majorian's attempt of reconquering the West as huge waste of resources and time and instead he wanted to consolidate power in Italy and build from there similar to what the Ostrogothic Kingdom would later become, people often forget that Ricimer defended Italy from the Vandals and Alans as italy has always been his main priority.
The expectations for the Emperor to personally lead the field army during the 4th century and the increasing pressure from the Empire's multiple fronts was what lead to the split of the Empire. Although in the beginning, Valentinian who gave control of the East to his brother Valens retained seniority.
One minute I might think you could run out of ideas. The second minute I think of all the things you still need to cover. That's a sign of a good future, as you know...
The east did enough, after all they had their own massive problems. The Huns and Persians were far more formidable than any of the barbarians in the west, plus, there were various germanic tribes who were also storming the balkans, it was a difficult time for both halves. The main difference is that the politicians and generals in the west were amazingly both incompetent and corrupt, with a few noteworthy exceptions. The empire was split precisely to respond to the increasing threats in a more effective way, so if one half is not doing its job and it’s actually sabotaging itself betraying its actual good leaders, well, there’s not much the east can do about it.
I think it's not that the East didn't try. The West fell because they had so many civil wars. So, the West killed themselves despite all the help the East gave. I think the last great help was the East and West trying to retake Africa. Which without Richaemer, they might have.
I mean: - Theodosius II organised a massive fleet to retake Africa but it got called off due to Attila. - Marcian helped draw Attila away from Italy by attacking the Hunnic lands across the Danube - Leo organised a HUGE invasion fleet to retake North Africa, only for Basiliscus to blow the whole thing and bankrupt the east. So no, I don't think the east left the west to die. They really did try to keep the sinking ship that was the WRE afloat
He also seems to be of the belief that the Roman Empire's core power base was located in the West throughout. Here's a fun history lesson: Where were the great ancient civilisations oft located? Answer: Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, Greece, the Aegean. Those regions were also more populous, urbanised, literate, had more trade income (particularly through the Silk Road), and larger cities. By contrast, the West had the relatively urbanised Italy, Africa (home of Carthage)....and that's it. This had been going on since the time when Rome was still a rinky-dink city state in Latium. The _political, economic, and military_ shift from West to East had started perhaps as far back as Pompey's conquests, and was a done deal by the time of the Crisis of the Third Century. The East was where the money and wealth was, where many great generals, political leaders, arts and learning came from. Every Roman general and emperor knew it, it's why Octavian was so pissed when Antony got control over the Eastern Provinces. When Octavian conquered Egypt, the loot gained killed off the national debt for years. Hadrian and Septimius Severus spent a lot of time out East. Constantine didn't just shift the power center from West to East overnight (and no, his "plundering" of Rome had little impact on the city itself, life went on as before), it was effectively the culmination of a slow, ongoing process that had been building up since Rome had started to become more than just a city, or a region, but a _hegemon._
@septimiusseverus343 You put it better than I ever could. The east's immense wealth was also the reason why Augustus made Egypt a personal province and the Senate feared Caligula moving to Alexandria. A Roman move to the east would give immense power and resources to whoever controlled it, and so the empire did it's best to keep things secure there. By comparison with the west, it's why once the Vandals took North Africa it was pretty much game over as, outside of Italy, there wasn't another region wealthy enough to raise the money needed to pay professional soldiers. To contrast, even after the East Romans lost the Levant and Egypt in the 600's, they still had Anatolia to fall back on as a wealthy source of income. The East's fall arguably became inevitable after 1300 once they lost control over the last fertile scraps of Anatolia to the Turks, and then a situation similar to the WRE's final years played out.
@@Onezy05 I concur on the loss of Africa being the final nail in the coffin for the WRE's chances of weathering the storms of the 5th century. Britain was lost (and had in reality always been a money sink - it only seemed to give up usurpers in return!), Gaul and Spain were untaxable and ungovernable after the Crossing of the Rhine, the Danube provinces were scorched, and the Roman Italians had by and large long since checked out. But no Africa? Then there is no standing army, no money to pay and upkeep the bureaucracy, no grain shipments to Rome which led to people moving on to greener pastures, etc. And the Vandals turned the Med from a Roman lake back into a battleground - they captured many warships in the docks of Carthage, which refutes Maiorianus' claim that the WRE lacked naval defenses.
@@septimiusseverus343 It genuinely baffles me why the Romans didn't abandon Britannia after the crisis of the 3rd century. Even moreso that someone like Diocletian seemed to think it was still important enough to organise campaigns to restore authority there. You would have thought they would have just pulled an Aurelian and left it like Dacia. And yeah, the Vandal conquest of Africa also destroyed the Romans naval supremacy in the western Med, disrupting the sea trade routes which had been the lifeblood of the empire for so long. I think that the west's last chance to save itself was either with Constantius III living long enough to defeat the Vandals or the Cape Bon expedition succeeding. I know some may point to Majorian being a possible restorer, but idk if he would have the resources needed to fully subjugate the Vandals.
@@Onezy05 Andronikos II is often forgotten but he is such a frustrating Emperor to read, somehow he though the demilitarization of the Byzantine army was a good idea despite being surrounded by enemies on all side and his unfortunate son Micheal the 9th who made many personal sacrifices to keep the Imperial army afloat was forced lead armies of poorly trained peasant militias against skilled Knights,veteran Bulgarian soldiers and Turkish nomads. The Empire could have still survived, even after the 1204 sacking thanks to a line of competent rulers under the Laskaris dynasty and Micheal VIII, but Andronikos II made sure to steer the Empire's direction back to total destruction.
The thing is, during the period from 395-420, the reason why the east didn't help the west as much was because there was STILL a chronic shortage of manpower after Adrianople. People forget that when Theodosius fought the west Romans at Frigidus, he did so with a rabble of conscripts, Huns, and Alaric's Goths. And then when Alaric revolted in 396, it was the WESTERN Roman army under Stilicho that fought them in Greece, not the eastern field army. The east only seems to have properly recovered by 420, as after that point you start seeing more military operations from them against the Persians and then against the West Romans after the usurpation of Joannes.
@@ericponce8740 Tbf the Sassanids weren't actually that a big a deal during the 400's. There were only two minor conflicts (one in the 420's and another in 440) but the fighting there was miniscule and there weren't any major territorial changes. Relations between Constantinople and Ctesiphon were actually relatively normal during this period, and it was only from Justin I onwards that there was a major escalation in the fighting. The relative peace on the eastern frontier during the 400's actually allowed more units to be sent to the Balkans to help fight the Huns and then the other barbarians who spilled out of Attila's empire.
It's so sad that these large and wealthy empire struggled to recuperate from a loss of 60,000 whilst the far smaller and less wealthy republic could raise that force no problem
@makk143 Things changed with Augustus. By turning military service from a civic duty into a paid profession, the issue of raising armies for the state became less so an issue of manpower and moreso one of cost. Rome was able to churn out army after army against Hannibal no matter the casualties because every Roman citizen was a potential conscript. Augustus separated the civilian and military careers and so it was harder for the army to replace it's losses (which is what happened after disastrous battles like Abrittus and Edessa during the 3rd century crisis)
Anthony Kaldellis book "the field armies of the eastern empire east roman empire 361-630" gives us a lot of insight about this issue. With the long periods of peace with the Sassanids and the Danube still relatively quite as Atilla uniting the Huns is still a few decades away, the ERE were actually experiencing the most peaceful time in their history during the early 5th century. Arcadius weak personality however meant that the field army was never fully rebuilt after the losses at Adrianople and Fridigus, as a result power was held by competent civil officials as they no longer had to worry of a powerful Imperial field army knocking on their back door. The limitanei and weaken field army were however enough to keep their foes in check and when a significant invasions did occur such as when the Huns under Uldis invaded, the East was able to flex it wealth by bribing his followers to disperse forcing the Hunnic general to retreat in shame despite the ERE failing to even assemble a comparable army to meet the Huns. This all means that the military capability of the ERE during the early 5th century was limited despite the prosperous era they find themselves on, only when Atilla started steering up troubles did the East saw it necessary to rebuild their comitatenses units again, that is why Marcian and Leo were able to aid the Empire more easily.
Yes, one can definitely say that help came too late. 431 was already very late, they should have sent help immediately in 406, but unfortunately: Arcadius.
Again an deep dive into the matters of possibilities, (unfulfilled) wishes and structural problems of two Roman empires at the time. Thanks a lot for the analysis and the points to consider. A pleasure to watch your profoundly presented videos.
@@christopherevans2445 The ERE was in a golden age during the 5th century, the 2 Emperors who would rule during the 1st half of the century, that being Arcadius and Theodosius II were mere puppet Emperors, actual decision making were done by competent civil officials such as Anthimieus and Euthrophius. These was the reason why the East despite all its wealth, did not have a mighty army to along during the early 5th century, the prefects running the Empire wanted power to remain in the hands of civil officials not the army so that army was never fully rebuilt to what it was prior to the disaster at Adrianople (378), Stilcho was seen as a danger to the status quo. Atilla's threat to the East however, finally forced this men to relent and rebuild the Eastern army back up that was why later Emperors such as Marcian and Leo were able to lend more substantial aid to the West.
Narses, the forgotten General, proved what the East was capable of during his march to Italy in 551. He swept aside all before him and gave the last, best display of true Roman might in the West. The East could have done this 150 years before, but it was too preoccupied with its own issues.
They tried but instead of Narses or Belissarius, Leo only had the incompetent Basilliscus to lead his massive army. Due to good relations with Persia, Leo was able to send an army even more grand the one Belissarius took to North Africa and the one Narses steamrolled the Ostrogoths with, they also had a helpful ally in the Western general Marcellinus to aid with the conquest and still, due to Basilliscus massive failure the fleet was scattered and destroyed before the army could engage the Vandals.
Justinian devastated Italia and crippled the state's resources, though these conquests enabled some Roman remains to carry on for some centuries in the West
Your video should have gone into more detail on who also initiated the civil wars, if you did it would matter a lot. It's any aggressor that bears responsibility not blaming one side from simply fighting in one.
So great and objective. I was tired of all those saying that the East didn't help at all when they really tried but failed. Some even go that far and target this narrative to justify the growin hatry between the Latins and Greeks in terms of the religious future conficts.
I believe the Empire was simply too big to be run as one unit. The western half needed to be set up to be run as a separate semi-independent polity, with it's own army, navy and command structure. They also needed a complete revision of how they ran things. Allowing anyone who served in the army to become citizens might have helped.
Das war schwer weil alle einheimischen Soldaten nach Caracalla bereits Römische Bürger waren. Und ich glaube die Feoderati bekamen das Römische Bürgerrecht. Zumindest dann wenn sie direkt in der Armee dienten. Und nicht einen Teils Staatsbeamten, Teils Kriegsheeren und Teils Söldnergeneral wie Fritigern.
To quote a favorite movie. Western Roman Emperor: "Where was the Eastern Roman Empire when the Westfold fell?! Where was the Eastern Roman Empire when our enemies closed in around us?!"
The statement the East cost to the west is simplistic. It was inevitable for the Roman Empire to have a second center in the east and provide all kind of sources. If this transfer hadn't occurred, the Roman Empire would've lost its eastern territories
Politics is ultimately pragmatic and mercenary. The overwhelming weight of population, agriculture, industry and trade was in the east. When push came to shove it was the Eastern Roman Empire that was to be saved, the West sacrificed.
In between their own bajillion wars in the Sandbox, Valens being killed at Adrianople, the Huns and barbarians also wrecking their house, and the classic Roman past time of constant civil wars and coups, they were pretty tied down and it’s quite amazing they didn’t fall shortly after. It’s actually impressive Rome didn’t fall altogether during the Crisis of the Third Century. When Odoacer deposed the final Emperor in the West, he returns the imperial regalia to the Emperor in Constantinople and cites it no longer being needed. Considering the lengths Rome went through to recover an eagle standard, they would not have let that go unanswered if there were literally any other option whatsoever. Justinian answered arguably as soon as the East was ready and in a position to do so.
The Huns and their Germanic vassals raided and extorted the East more than they did the West, the Eastern court much like West were also experiencing Germanic takeover, Aspar the Alanic/Gothic general of the East ruled the Empire as a shadow Emperor for much of the mid 5th century, both Marcian and Leo owed their throne to Aspar and much like West, they had the powerful Thracian Goths residing within the Balkans which Aspar can rely on for support.
One assumes that the papacy-as-western-empire argument rests on various grants of authority in the Vatican archives. Unfortunately for papal apologists, they're forgeries. Moreover, the actual events of history demonstrate that the papacy was under the political jurisdiction of the (reunited) empire pretty much until it became subject to the Franks, which brought with it all manner of error and led to the apostacy of the papacy. The Western Empire reunited with the east upon the assassination of Julius Nepos, when Zeno opted not to appoint a new Western subordinate emperor.
The Romans had to keep in check the Sassinads who were always a threat to the Eastern Roman Empire. The Sassinads were always a thorn to the Romans.
9 днів тому+1
The Vandal kingdom in Africa was a disaster for the western Roman Empire. The West had been doing poorly economically for some time. What kept the West afloat was the economic revival of Carthage and north Africa in late Roman times. But once the Vandals invaded and conquered Northern Africa and stole it away from Rome, Rome could no longer rely on tax receipts from north Africa. Rome subsequently went broke and collapsed.
Your channel helped me get into all of this. Something I don't understand is... how did the barbarians get so powerful???? The Roman Empire had cities and agriculture. They should have had WAY MORE resources than people living out in the woods would have. And how'd the barbarians just.... build up their population so huge and strong that they were able to take down Rome? And lastly..... WHY? What got that many people so pissed off they destroyed beautiful cities?
Provo a rispondere parzialmente in modo molto semplice. Si dice "Roma Invicta" ed è vero perchè Roma ha perso alcune battaglie, anche importanti, ma ha sempre vinto tutte le guerre. Soltanto Roma può vincere Roma. E così succede, infatti. Odoacre, il primo re barbaro che depone l'Imperatore Romolo Augusto, è un Generale Romano.
Nice idea for a video Maiorianus but I disagree with a few points. I dont agree with the narrative that the West was weakened in favour of the East. When the capital was transfered to Constantinople, the West still maintained good quality troops,ships, generals and Emperors fully capable of defending the frontiers. Emperors in Constantinople did not tend to ignore events in the West. As far as the civil wars in the 4th century are concerned, yes they were detrimental and decisive in the collapse of the West but you have to ask if the East is really to be blamed 100% for such wars. Usually it was the West that started them by rising a usurper and the Eastern Emperor was forced to respond with war (you undermine your own authority if u recognize a usurper, although in the last civil war of 394 which was the most destructive, Eastern Emperor Theodosius is partially to blame for not preventing it). Eastern Rome did help the west in 406-410, they sent 4,000 troops in Ravenna, in a time where most of the west was in the hands of Germans and Usurpers, helping to boost the legitimacy of the Western Government in Ravenna, adding force to the depleted Western armies and partially convinced Honorius that he should stay in Italy (he was ready to flee to Constantinople due to the chaos, perhaps then the West falling even sooner). Moreover, its impossible for Eastern Rome to respond to every major threat there was in the west. They had to look their own welfare as well. It is clear however that generally speaking the Eastern goverment helped the West in times of need (sending Aspar and troops in Africa, 468 Vandal expedition...).
What?! How come attacking Odoacer was "helping the Western Empire", whatever your reading of the situation was? Odoacer was the residual Western Empire just not wanting to be "empire" (which it wasn't) anymore. Odoacer was right, yet he was destroyed by Byzantium by proxy.
Let us say that since the capital moved to the Greek East, the core nation of the Empire ceased to be the Latins. Then on, the core nation of the Empire were the Greeks. And let us just say that the Greeks DID NOT CARE! I am a Greek, that is not something I am particularly proud of, but truly, the Greeks did not care about the West. Make no mistake, this was not any "retaliation" about Latin Roman's earlier conquest and destructions brought upon the Greeks. The Greeks had grown to like the Romans as much as Romans liked the Greeks all the way, they viewed them as a brotherly people and by that time equally civilized, they recognized a past common ancestry, they had the same religion, first the 12 Gods, then the philosophical currents and later Christianity. Greeks highly esteemed of the Roman Imperial system, its administration and had fully adopted the political term "Roman" and identified with it, even more so when the term was Greeks (whether of Greek origins or not, "rome" is a Greek word, it means "power"). However, how to put it otherwise... Greeks were "localists". I.e. they would not bother to send their kids to die in some far fetched land just to protect some Gauls or Iberians ex-barbarians who got only recently romanized - al that said nothing to them. You also need to count the fact that we talk about an era when western Europe was nothing special to fight for really, as in spite of the population being 45%-55%, or who knows, even 50%-50%, about 85% of the Empire's economic output and about 98% of its civilizational output was produced south-and-east of Rome = in the Hellenic-Hellenistic world, i.e. in the ethnic Greek lands and in the lands where Greeks ruled (and Greeks continued to rule in Egypt and Syria governmentally and culturally even within the Roman Empire as it paid off for Romans to maintain the status quo). So even aside the lack of sentimental attachment to the West, there was no economic or geostrategic interest to consecrate resources to save the West. Don't get this wrong, it is not that nobody was interested. There were attempts to kick out the Goths from Italy and unroot the Vandals from North Africa, initially with no success and eventually during Justinian's time with great success, taken by ultra-capable generals such as Belisarius and Narses. But it was just so futile. By that time the western regions of Italy, Spain and North Africa had been so thoroughly plundered, the population had so much reduced and the remaining ones were so hopeless and so incapable of reacting that it would require a continuous lifeline from Constantinople to sustain them as provinces of the Empire. Perhaps the loss of Sardenia is most exemplary : Sardenia was not actually invaded, they were happy within the Roman Empire of Constantinople, they were paying their taxes, even sending a military guard, "the Sardenians" to the Emperor, until the point the Empire ceased to send them emissaries, basically forgetting them, so they figured out they were on their own and continued so, quite a very anti-climactic end there! The reason? It was just too bothersome to maintain that contact with Sardinia when the Empire was struggling to keep South Italy after having lost North Italy to Lombards after having tried for long to keep the Roman presence there (note too that it was already in the late 600s when the Islamic piracy had already started in the Mediterranean). People just don't understand that the early Middle Ages were one of the most chaotic periods of human history that can only be compared with the Late Bronze Age Collapse. It didn't matter how powerful was the Eastern Roman Empire when even the last barbarian tribe had more or less comparable weapons (horses, lances, swords and bows and armors etc.) and when they were pouring into Europe from Asia, or from North Europe to South Europe in the millions. Just imagine the 2015 "refugee crisis" of 5 million illegal immigrants pouring into the European Union being actually not 5 but 20 to 30 million immigrants of which 10 to 15 million men of fighting age armed with tanks, canons, aircraft and drones (!!!) and you have the picture of what we talk about. This is what the Eastern Roman Empire was dealing with... oh... all that while facing the world's No2 Empire, the Sassanid Iranians... so in the EU example the EU would have to face these millions of well-armed invaders all while fighting Putin's Russia! Crazy? Well that was the reality back then. The relatively calm times of the earlier Roman Empire were the exception not the norm precisely because they were "too calm" (and no, not because of the 33 legions that Rome had - it was just that there were no big time enemies around to threaten the Empire - as soon as these appeared they attacked with success).... while the times of the Eastern Roman Empire were also an exception but this time for being too agitated. So this is the reason overall why the Eastern Roman Empire did not bother much : 1) they actually bothered but they just bothered themselves a little, not a lot 2) ... so it was not enough and the overall project of "reconquista" was seen as futile However, we need to note again that this was the overwhelming Greek attitude : the Greeks proved to be localists, they did not bother much about the non-Greek periphery whom they viewed as NPCs. The same was noted not just for the western regions but also for Egypt and Syria. By that time, the Greek populations had dwindled there, still numerous but nowhere near their numbers back in the earlier days, therefore the Greeks overall lost interest. They could not care less - and none is going to tell you that, not even the historians of the day, you just need to start reading between the lines here. When the Arabs rose up to threaten Syria, they had sent mainly Armenians and Georgians to stop the first islamic armies at Yarmuk with only a minority of Greek troops there - and yes, this is the No1 reason why the Roman army lost at Yarmuk (Armenians and Georgians were worthy troops but had inexperienced leaderships). They hardly did an effort to reconquer these lands and when 3 centuries later, Nicephoros Phocas, who was such a phenomenal general that even without great investments, managed to beat the Arabs so badly that they called him "the Devil" and he was about to clear them out of all Syria, the population back in Constantinople was seriously against him, he became unpopular, which fueled Tsimiskes' ambitions to exploit the public sentiment, murder him and take his throne. We talk of a general, later Emperor till his murder, who brought victories and people hated him for doing so. Just like with Justinian 4 centuries earlier, a particularly unpopular Emperor back then precisely for sending men and resources to far flung lands. It thus indeed all comes down to (also, among all other that) "Greeks did not care". Eventually at the times of Basil II the Greeks got what they wanted : more or less a Greek ethno-state with a bit of periphery on the edges to use as bumbers / shock-absorbers. And who would had thought it, they kept doing their national hobby, i.e. civil wars! LOL! That was one of the many reasons why the Empire just couldn't keep it up as an Imperial system and collapsed within less than a century, until it was resuscitated by Emperor Alexios Komnenos but who by that time run the state, what was a Greek ethnostate, as his personal kingdom, not anymore as an Empire.
I think the wording you use can be confusing for novice history fans. You make it sound as if they were two distinct empires,whereas, it was always a single empire. When the empire was divided in 4 by Diocletian, we don’t refer to each area ruled by their Caesar/Augustus as the northwestern/southwestern Roman Empire and/or the northeastern/southeastern Roman Empire. It’s more accurate to say the eastern half or western half of the Roman empire in the context of this video.
The inevitable fall of the west ,was a repeat of the ancient invasion of young nations in Europe two thousand years before: the womb of the east produced enough people to enforce an invasin in Europe because of necessity. The Huns moved to twe West, the Gothic tribes of the Ukrainian planes pushed the Germans for space,and the Germans,who were three and four times more populated than the years of Antonine dynasty, floated the empire....
Not as strongly as left them to die but moving to Constantinople, meaning they accepted change, and those who accepted change, lived to carry the legitimate Roman citizenship these people acquire in 212.
Weil man sich auf die Sassaniden Konzentrieren wollte. Deshalb hat man eine weitere Hauptstadt gegründet. Damit der Kaiser auf die Bedrohungen aus dem Osten schneller reagieren konnte. Und außerdem Hatte man allgemein erkannt dass, das Reich zu groß war. Als das es nur ein Kaiser verteidigen konnte. Deshalb hat es Deokletian ja auch in vier Verwaltungseinheiten geteilt. Die Jeweils von Vier Kaisern reagiert wurden. Und diese Reichsteile mussten mindestens von jemandem mit dem Titel Augustus oder zumindest Ceaser reagiert werden. Weil Armeen die nicht direkt von einem Kaiser Kommandiert wurden. Seit dem 3. Jahrhundert immer mehr dazu neigten. Ursupartoren zu erheben.
The fall of the Western Roman Empire was not only the fault of the barbarians and civil wars, but also of Byzantium. Since the Eastern Roman Empire interfered in the political affairs of the West and there was no stability there, a good example is the emperors John and Glycerius. They were both good rulers for the Western Romans, but the Byzantines were angry that they were not appointed emperors by them, although they both wanted good neighborly relations with the Greeks of Constantinople. It is very symbolic that the emperor of the East Zeno, who abolished the title of emperor of the West in 480 after the death of Julius Nepos, was buried alive as punishment for this stupid act!
The heck are you talking about bro that’s a story fabricated by 11th century Byzantine writers with no evidence from any previous sources. He just died of Epilepsy. And Zeno saved the Eastern Empire from the Goths in a time when an Arian Goth was appointed Ceasar and heir of the Eastern Throne by the Germanic puppet master Aspar. Without Leo and Zeno the Eastern Empire faces the same Germanic death as the west. Also you can’t ignore that the East sent competent men with reinforcements like Anthemius too
@@tylerellis9097 Accept the objective truth that Byzantium prevented the Western Roman Empire from gaining political stability. After all, it was because of the Greeks of Constantinople that emperors such as John, Avitus and Glycerius were dethroned, although they could have preserved the Western Roman Empire. It turns out that the Byzantines decided to overthrow them only because they did not personally appoint them emperors in the "West", even though these rulers of the West wanted peace with Byzantium!
@ I don’t know why you keep saying Greeks, All the Men sent west were done so by Latin Emperors or their Germanic puppet masters. It was Theodosius in the first place who smashed the Western Roman armies in the civil wars and he was from the west himself. The Eastern Empire inherited the policy he set as United Emperor in which the Eastern Emperor was the Senior Emperor of the two. And the Western Empire Intervened first in Eastern politics when Stilicho had Rufinus assassinated and tried to take eastern Illyria from the Eastern Empire with Alaric. It’s a two way street the West isn’t innocent.
@@РимскийОрел Do you have any concrete evidence that the mediocrities known as Joannes, Avitus and Glycerius had the competence necessary to truly turn things around?
@@septimiusseverus343 Understand that if the Byzantines had not interfered in the political affairs of the Western Roman Empire, then it could have obviously existed much longer, even if only within the borders of Italy.
I think fans of Roman history completely lose the plot. The Italian aristocracy had run the Mediterranean between the end of the Second Punic War up until the the Third Century Crisis. At that point the Italian nobles had as much power as any other regional nobles. They might have had more tradition and some deeper pockets, but the Illyrian military aristocracy emerged from their failure and took over the show for 100 years. Valentinian is the last major emperor to prioritize the West, but he did so for military reasons, not tradition or deference. The powers of the emperor had ALWAYS been in the East because of Egypt and the twin frontiers of the Danube and Persia, it just became more obvious due to the collapse of the old frontier system. The only way the West survives is by bowing down to the whims on Constantinople, which was never gonna happen, even when Gaul and Spain were overrun and Africa under rebellion. The West deserved to fall for its failure to politically consolidate after the short lived Gallic Empire. The Western court was more interested in choosing sides between its key generals instead of making sure they're all keeping their eyes on the ball. The civil war between Aetius, Felix and Bonifatius made sure that both Spain and Africa fell, and left Aetius with maybe half of Spain/Gaul and Italy. Aetius even didn't press Atilla after their epic clash just in case he needed his help against his own allies.
Here is my view. Rome was only in turkey. The vatican was built in 1453 , after a religious disagreement in turkey at the haggis Sophia. During the disagreements about if jesus was part man , part God, what text should be permited in the bible , was mary a God or a human , the arab Christians broke off to what became islam , and another part of the church fled after the arab armies took the city of Constantinople. part of the church fled to italy in the 1300s and started building the vatican, then wrote history books claiming, this new palce is the real rome . At this point, the church in italy had a monopoly on all history in western europe written. You challenge it, you would be in serious danger , after one or 2 generations the state sponsored lie becomes fact in the minds of the following generations. 1. No roman scrolls exist. Period. 2. No roman swords or shields exists. ( expet they found one in england only ) that seems completely fishy. 3. European countries have been making fake ruins. ( look up fake ruins in europe) 4. roman Empire in turkey spoke greek, and the italy rome spoke roman? That doesn't add up. 5 . We have proof of turkey Rome. 6. Random ruins are not enough because ruins are all over the Mediterranean, including Africa. My belief is that the rome italy was completely fabricated with stories by the Catholic Church in the 1600s. Mike
Eastern Roman by blood half Roman real Eastern Romans were not ethnic Greeks but Native Anatolians, i am half Türkic Cuman and i can say Italians and Native Anatolians share ancestry real Romans were Anatolian Neolithic Farmers Mediterranean looking and there is proof the Romans of Western Roman Empire were 45-50% Anatolian Neolithic farmer and the other was mixed but the time of Julius Caesar they were many Anatolian Neolithic farmers Romans but barbarian invasions in Western Roman Empire Germanic and Celtic tribes change the ancestry of Western Romans, but in Tuscany and other places in Italy they still look like Romans Mediterranean type, in movies such as barbarians with Arminius, Varus and other Romans resemble the Ancient Romans real Romans had brown skin not white skin
🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus
we tried (greek here, one of the east tribes), but we didnt suceed because the plague hits harder big cties compared to smaller-semi nomadic cities-villages, therefore east stayed east
It's wrong, east TRIED, they were not succefull-they could not help anymore, but they tried
u will see later in history why the byzantine population died and fought as "antiwest/east", east never recognised the new west status quo, k today there is no point of saying something against west, but eastern romans were friends with latins, but latins fell under the controll of the new tribes, the economic interests of the "common sea" became "the annoying empire that stops our decent in the hot seas"
Later the united west (when they were united), they fought the ottomans for the same reason "the annoying empire that stops our decent in the hot seas"
the ROMAN POPULATION remained ANTInorth, the elites were the problem, roman pop it's like saying today "the west europeans", but if u lose somehow by russia the europe will change ( this cant happen today atleast), the east pop didnt embrace germanics ever, ofc after some point the west could not push them back, but the real reason why the east never accept west as population was the "germanic part" most propably
The population of the "union' always were annoyed by north, but elites are different entities
EVEN indoeuropeans came by the steppe, but the eras of the steppe coming when natural disasters hit, disasters on old eras hit harder the advanced, in industrial era is different story, but on these eras nomads-semi nomads take the upper hand, it's not like we had "weak people", u just lose ur capacity
The fall of the Western Roman Empire was not only the fault of the barbarians and civil wars, but also of Byzantium. Since the Eastern Roman Empire interfered in the political affairs of the West and there was no stability there, a good example is the emperors John and Glycerius. They were both good rulers for the Western Romans, but the Byzantines were angry that they were not appointed emperors by them, although they both wanted good neighborly relations with the Greeks of Constantinople.
It is very symbolic that the emperor of the East Zeno, who abolished the title of emperor of the West in 480 after the death of Julius Nepos, was buried alive as punishment for this stupid act!
@@РимскийОрел the people were not antilatins, this is what i'm saying, elites always have their "personal dreams"
In reality, the best shot at reclaiming western territory was under Majorian. Had Ricimer not been the criminal traitor he turned out to be, Majorian could have made a difference that lasted. But it is as you say, a confluence of events that made the fall of the west almost inevitable. Thank you so much for your brilliant insights and videos!
With what army thou, the army Majorian used mostly consisted of Barbarian federates from the Danube, he managed to defeat the Suebi, Burgandians and Visigoths with this formidable army but he didn't inflict a significant defeat on any of this tribes, they still held considerable power in Gaul and Hispania, his conquest was all made "on paper" as he was not able to properly integrate or tax this Germanic war chiefs.
Instead these Germanic tribes bide their time, they knew Majorians goal was North Africa so they were letting Majorian sail with his army to North Africa and make said army the Vandals problem, but his expensive fleet was destroyed before he can even sail and the Senators and Italian ruling class who bankroll his expedition was very, very upset. What little wealth Italy had was gone, retaining Majorian's "paper conquest" in Hispania and Gaul was impossible without a proper army while being surrounded by multiple Babrbarian tribes that still had a strong powerbase and nothing was even done to weaken the Vandals who are still able to raid Italy. Ricimer was not a mustache twirling villain but he was Majorian political rival at this point who viewed Majorian's attempt of reconquering the West as huge waste of resources and time and instead he wanted to consolidate power in Italy and build from there similar to what the Ostrogothic Kingdom would later become, people often forget that Ricimer defended Italy from the Vandals and Alans as italy has always been his main priority.
@ I hear you.
All of Rome should stay united, even if parts of it are administered separately for logistical purposes, they should all be coordinated.
I agree. That would have been the ideal outcome of the splitting. Unfortunately though, the split lead to an estrangement between East and West :(
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian These differences were most likely already there, that's why the split became permanent
The expectations for the Emperor to personally lead the field army during the 4th century and the increasing pressure from the Empire's multiple fronts was what lead to the split of the Empire. Although in the beginning, Valentinian who gave control of the East to his brother Valens retained seniority.
I hope they read this before it's too late!
Rome should have federalised to survive
One minute I might think you could run out of ideas. The second minute I think of all the things you still need to cover. That's a sign of a good future, as you know...
The east did enough, after all they had their own massive problems. The Huns and Persians were far more formidable than any of the barbarians in the west, plus, there were various germanic tribes who were also storming the balkans, it was a difficult time for both halves. The main difference is that the politicians and generals in the west were amazingly both incompetent and corrupt, with a few noteworthy exceptions. The empire was split precisely to respond to the increasing threats in a more effective way, so if one half is not doing its job and it’s actually sabotaging itself betraying its actual good leaders, well, there’s not much the east can do about it.
I think it's not that the East didn't try. The West fell because they had so many civil wars. So, the West killed themselves despite all the help the East gave. I think the last great help was the East and West trying to retake Africa. Which without Richaemer, they might have.
Indeed no stable emperor after Honorius.
No, Maiorianus, YOU are amazing!! I love this channel!
I mean:
- Theodosius II organised a massive fleet to retake Africa but it got called off due to Attila.
- Marcian helped draw Attila away from Italy by attacking the Hunnic lands across the Danube
- Leo organised a HUGE invasion fleet to retake North Africa, only for Basiliscus to blow the whole thing and bankrupt the east.
So no, I don't think the east left the west to die. They really did try to keep the sinking ship that was the WRE afloat
He also seems to be of the belief that the Roman Empire's core power base was located in the West throughout. Here's a fun history lesson: Where were the great ancient civilisations oft located?
Answer: Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, Greece, the Aegean.
Those regions were also more populous, urbanised, literate, had more trade income (particularly through the Silk Road), and larger cities. By contrast, the West had the relatively urbanised Italy, Africa (home of Carthage)....and that's it. This had been going on since the time when Rome was still a rinky-dink city state in Latium. The _political, economic, and military_ shift from West to East had started perhaps as far back as Pompey's conquests, and was a done deal by the time of the Crisis of the Third Century. The East was where the money and wealth was, where many great generals, political leaders, arts and learning came from. Every Roman general and emperor knew it, it's why Octavian was so pissed when Antony got control over the Eastern Provinces. When Octavian conquered Egypt, the loot gained killed off the national debt for years. Hadrian and Septimius Severus spent a lot of time out East. Constantine didn't just shift the power center from West to East overnight (and no, his "plundering" of Rome had little impact on the city itself, life went on as before), it was effectively the culmination of a slow, ongoing process that had been building up since Rome had started to become more than just a city, or a region, but a _hegemon._
@septimiusseverus343 You put it better than I ever could. The east's immense wealth was also the reason why Augustus made Egypt a personal province and the Senate feared Caligula moving to Alexandria.
A Roman move to the east would give immense power and resources to whoever controlled it, and so the empire did it's best to keep things secure there.
By comparison with the west, it's why once the Vandals took North Africa it was pretty much game over as, outside of Italy, there wasn't another region wealthy enough to raise the money needed to pay professional soldiers.
To contrast, even after the East Romans lost the Levant and Egypt in the 600's, they still had Anatolia to fall back on as a wealthy source of income. The East's fall arguably became inevitable after 1300 once they lost control over the last fertile scraps of Anatolia to the Turks, and then a situation similar to the WRE's final years played out.
@@Onezy05 I concur on the loss of Africa being the final nail in the coffin for the WRE's chances of weathering the storms of the 5th century. Britain was lost (and had in reality always been a money sink - it only seemed to give up usurpers in return!), Gaul and Spain were untaxable and ungovernable after the Crossing of the Rhine, the Danube provinces were scorched, and the Roman Italians had by and large long since checked out. But no Africa? Then there is no standing army, no money to pay and upkeep the bureaucracy, no grain shipments to Rome which led to people moving on to greener pastures, etc. And the Vandals turned the Med from a Roman lake back into a battleground - they captured many warships in the docks of Carthage, which refutes Maiorianus' claim that the WRE lacked naval defenses.
@@septimiusseverus343 It genuinely baffles me why the Romans didn't abandon Britannia after the crisis of the 3rd century. Even moreso that someone like Diocletian seemed to think it was still important enough to organise campaigns to restore authority there. You would have thought they would have just pulled an Aurelian and left it like Dacia.
And yeah, the Vandal conquest of Africa also destroyed the Romans naval supremacy in the western Med, disrupting the sea trade routes which had been the lifeblood of the empire for so long. I think that the west's last chance to save itself was either with Constantius III living long enough to defeat the Vandals or the Cape Bon expedition succeeding. I know some may point to Majorian being a possible restorer, but idk if he would have the resources needed to fully subjugate the Vandals.
@@Onezy05 Andronikos II is often forgotten but he is such a frustrating Emperor to read, somehow he though the demilitarization of the Byzantine army was a good idea despite being surrounded by enemies on all side and his unfortunate son Micheal the 9th who made many personal sacrifices to keep the Imperial army afloat was forced lead armies of poorly trained peasant militias against skilled Knights,veteran Bulgarian soldiers and Turkish nomads. The Empire could have still survived, even after the 1204 sacking thanks to a line of competent rulers under the Laskaris dynasty and Micheal VIII, but Andronikos II made sure to steer the Empire's direction back to total destruction.
I always had this thought, I'm glad you made a video about this. I'm really enjoying your content.
I very much enjoyed your take on this issue. Great points to consider.
Thank you very much for this video.
The thing is, during the period from 395-420, the reason why the east didn't help the west as much was because there was STILL a chronic shortage of manpower after Adrianople.
People forget that when Theodosius fought the west Romans at Frigidus, he did so with a rabble of conscripts, Huns, and Alaric's Goths. And then when Alaric revolted in 396, it was the WESTERN Roman army under Stilicho that fought them in Greece, not the eastern field army.
The east only seems to have properly recovered by 420, as after that point you start seeing more military operations from them against the Persians and then against the West Romans after the usurpation of Joannes.
And, the Romans had to keep in check the Sassinads who were always a threat to the Eastern Roman Empire.
@@ericponce8740 Tbf the Sassanids weren't actually that a big a deal during the 400's. There were only two minor conflicts (one in the 420's and another in 440) but the fighting there was miniscule and there weren't any major territorial changes. Relations between Constantinople and Ctesiphon were actually relatively normal during this period, and it was only from Justin I onwards that there was a major escalation in the fighting.
The relative peace on the eastern frontier during the 400's actually allowed more units to be sent to the Balkans to help fight the Huns and then the other barbarians who spilled out of Attila's empire.
It's so sad that these large and wealthy empire struggled to recuperate from a loss of 60,000 whilst the far smaller and less wealthy republic could raise that force no problem
@makk143 Things changed with Augustus. By turning military service from a civic duty into a paid profession, the issue of raising armies for the state became less so an issue of manpower and moreso one of cost.
Rome was able to churn out army after army against Hannibal no matter the casualties because every Roman citizen was a potential conscript. Augustus separated the civilian and military careers and so it was harder for the army to replace it's losses (which is what happened after disastrous battles like Abrittus and Edessa during the 3rd century crisis)
Anthony Kaldellis book "the field armies of the eastern empire east roman empire 361-630" gives us a lot of insight about this issue. With the long periods of peace with the Sassanids and the Danube still relatively quite as Atilla uniting the Huns is still a few decades away, the ERE were actually experiencing the most peaceful time in their history during the early 5th century.
Arcadius weak personality however meant that the field army was never fully rebuilt after the losses at Adrianople and Fridigus, as a result power was held by competent civil officials as they no longer had to worry of a powerful Imperial field army knocking on their back door. The limitanei and weaken field army were however enough to keep their foes in check and when a significant invasions did occur such as when the Huns under Uldis invaded, the East was able to flex it wealth by bribing his followers to disperse forcing the Hunnic general to retreat in shame despite the ERE failing to even assemble a comparable army to meet the Huns. This all means that the military capability of the ERE during the early 5th century was limited despite the prosperous era they find themselves on, only when Atilla started steering up troubles did the East saw it necessary to rebuild their comitatenses units again, that is why Marcian and Leo were able to aid the Empire more easily.
I would say not only yes, but they also looted many riches from it, even statues…
Yes, one can definitely say that help came too late. 431 was already very late, they should have sent help immediately in 406, but unfortunately: Arcadius.
Again an deep dive into the matters of possibilities, (unfulfilled) wishes and structural problems of two Roman empires at the time. Thanks a lot for the analysis and the points to consider. A pleasure to watch your profoundly presented videos.
I have also read that Arcadius and Honorius hated each other and would like to see the other fall
With Stilcho as guardian over both boys the empire would certainly have been more of a United empire. He tried.
@@christopherevans2445 The ERE was in a golden age during the 5th century, the 2 Emperors who would rule during the 1st half of the century, that being Arcadius and Theodosius II were mere puppet Emperors, actual decision making were done by competent civil officials such as Anthimieus and Euthrophius. These was the reason why the East despite all its wealth, did not have a mighty army to along during the early 5th century, the prefects running the Empire wanted power to remain in the hands of civil officials not the army so that army was never fully rebuilt to what it was prior to the disaster at Adrianople (378), Stilcho was seen as a danger to the status quo. Atilla's threat to the East however, finally forced this men to relent and rebuild the Eastern army back up that was why later Emperors such as Marcian and Leo were able to lend more substantial aid to the West.
Narses, the forgotten General, proved what the East was capable of during his march to Italy in 551. He swept aside all before him and gave the last, best display of true Roman might in the West. The East could have done this 150 years before, but it was too preoccupied with its own issues.
They tried but instead of Narses or Belissarius, Leo only had the incompetent Basilliscus to lead his massive army. Due to good relations with Persia, Leo was able to send an army even more grand the one Belissarius took to North Africa and the one Narses steamrolled the Ostrogoths with, they also had a helpful ally in the Western general Marcellinus to aid with the conquest and still, due to Basilliscus massive failure the fleet was scattered and destroyed before the army could engage the Vandals.
History doesn't repeat itself but it certainly rhymes.
Justinian devastated Italia and crippled the state's resources, though these conquests enabled some Roman remains to carry on for some centuries in the West
Wow, that was a whole new perspective, especially with Marcian.
Thanks, yes, Marcian was better than most credit him.
Your video should have gone into more detail on who also initiated the civil wars, if you did it would matter a lot. It's any aggressor that bears responsibility not blaming one side from simply fighting in one.
So great and objective. I was tired of all those saying that the East didn't help at all when they really tried but failed. Some even go that far and target this narrative to justify the growin hatry between the Latins and Greeks in terms of the religious future conficts.
I believe the Empire was simply too big to be run as one unit. The western half needed to be set up to be run as a separate semi-independent polity, with it's own army, navy and command structure. They also needed a complete revision of how they ran things. Allowing anyone who served in the army to become citizens might have helped.
Das war schwer weil alle einheimischen Soldaten nach Caracalla bereits Römische Bürger waren. Und ich glaube die Feoderati bekamen das Römische Bürgerrecht. Zumindest dann wenn sie direkt in der Armee dienten. Und nicht einen Teils Staatsbeamten, Teils Kriegsheeren und Teils Söldnergeneral wie Fritigern.
The thumbnail of the video 😂
There were complaints that Stillicio took all the best legion west, and kept them there.
Bro that thumbnail is absolutely hilarious ahahhahah
To quote a favorite movie.
Western Roman Emperor: "Where was the Eastern Roman Empire when the Westfold fell?! Where was the Eastern Roman Empire when our enemies closed in around us?!"
Where was the Eastern Roman Empire when the West crippled themselves with civil wars, corruption, and the assasination of their most capable generals!
The statement the East cost to the west is simplistic. It was inevitable for the Roman Empire to have a second center in the east and provide all kind of sources. If this transfer hadn't occurred, the Roman Empire would've lost its eastern territories
Politics is ultimately pragmatic and mercenary. The overwhelming weight of population, agriculture, industry and trade was in the east. When push came to shove it was the Eastern Roman Empire that was to be saved, the West sacrificed.
In between their own bajillion wars in the Sandbox, Valens being killed at Adrianople, the Huns and barbarians also wrecking their house, and the classic Roman past time of constant civil wars and coups, they were pretty tied down and it’s quite amazing they didn’t fall shortly after. It’s actually impressive Rome didn’t fall altogether during the Crisis of the Third Century.
When Odoacer deposed the final Emperor in the West, he returns the imperial regalia to the Emperor in Constantinople and cites it no longer being needed.
Considering the lengths Rome went through to recover an eagle standard, they would not have let that go unanswered if there were literally any other option whatsoever.
Justinian answered arguably as soon as the East was ready and in a position to do so.
I already know the answer, but I’m always eager to clarify the details in Late Antiquity:)
This is very much Gibbon's thesis. The Eastern Empire paid the Barbarians to keep out of its borders, so they went after the western part.
The Huns and their Germanic vassals raided and extorted the East more than they did the West, the Eastern court much like West were also experiencing Germanic takeover, Aspar the Alanic/Gothic general of the East ruled the Empire as a shadow Emperor for much of the mid 5th century, both Marcian and Leo owed their throne to Aspar and much like West, they had the powerful Thracian Goths residing within the Balkans which Aspar can rely on for support.
Since the catholic church is a continuation of the western empire I would have to Say that it was the Western Empire that left the Eastern Empire die.
By that logic the Eastern Roman Empire isn’t dead since the Eastern Orthodox Church is a continuation of it
One assumes that the papacy-as-western-empire argument rests on various grants of authority in the Vatican archives. Unfortunately for papal apologists, they're forgeries. Moreover, the actual events of history demonstrate that the papacy was under the political jurisdiction of the (reunited) empire pretty much until it became subject to the Franks, which brought with it all manner of error and led to the apostacy of the papacy.
The Western Empire reunited with the east upon the assassination of Julius Nepos, when Zeno opted not to appoint a new Western subordinate emperor.
Like Vince once said.
BRET SCREWED BRET, aka WRE SCREWED WRE..
Remember also how Hellas was razed by the huns. The east suffered a lot too.
But in 4th century east Xians terrorised and killed many pagans for a new empire with a roman name
Have you done a video on Roman identity in the late antiquity and early Middle Ages? If not could you please
The Romans had to keep in check the Sassinads who were always a threat to the Eastern Roman Empire. The Sassinads were always a thorn to the Romans.
The Vandal kingdom in Africa was a disaster for the western Roman Empire. The West had been doing poorly economically for some time. What kept the West afloat was the economic revival of Carthage and north Africa in late Roman times. But once the Vandals invaded and conquered Northern Africa and stole it away from Rome, Rome could no longer rely on tax receipts from north Africa. Rome subsequently went broke and collapsed.
Your channel helped me get into all of this. Something I don't understand is... how did the barbarians get so powerful???? The Roman Empire had cities and agriculture. They should have had WAY MORE resources than people living out in the woods would have.
And how'd the barbarians just.... build up their population so huge and strong that they were able to take down Rome?
And lastly..... WHY? What got that many people so pissed off they destroyed beautiful cities?
Provo a rispondere parzialmente in modo molto semplice. Si dice "Roma Invicta" ed è vero perchè Roma ha perso alcune battaglie, anche importanti, ma ha sempre vinto tutte le guerre. Soltanto Roma può vincere Roma. E così succede, infatti. Odoacre, il primo re barbaro che depone l'Imperatore Romolo Augusto, è un Generale Romano.
11:20 It was the fact that Aetius was coming with his son Majorian to.
Nice idea for a video Maiorianus but I disagree with a few points. I dont agree with the narrative that the West was weakened in favour of the East. When the capital was transfered to Constantinople, the West still maintained good quality troops,ships, generals and Emperors fully capable of defending the frontiers. Emperors in Constantinople did not tend to ignore events in the West.
As far as the civil wars in the 4th century are concerned, yes they were detrimental and decisive in the collapse of the West but you have to ask if the East is really to be blamed 100% for such wars. Usually it was the West that started them by rising a usurper and the Eastern Emperor was forced to respond with war (you undermine your own authority if u recognize a usurper, although in the last civil war of 394 which was the most destructive, Eastern Emperor Theodosius is partially to blame for not preventing it).
Eastern Rome did help the west in 406-410, they sent 4,000 troops in Ravenna, in a time where most of the west was in the hands of Germans and Usurpers, helping to boost the legitimacy of the Western Government in Ravenna, adding force to the depleted Western armies and partially convinced Honorius that he should stay in Italy (he was ready to flee to Constantinople due to the chaos, perhaps then the West falling even sooner).
Moreover, its impossible for Eastern Rome to respond to every major threat there was in the west. They had to look their own welfare as well. It is clear however that generally speaking the Eastern goverment helped the West in times of need (sending Aspar and troops in Africa, 468 Vandal expedition...).
What?! How come attacking Odoacer was "helping the Western Empire", whatever your reading of the situation was? Odoacer was the residual Western Empire just not wanting to be "empire" (which it wasn't) anymore. Odoacer was right, yet he was destroyed by Byzantium by proxy.
Let us say that since the capital moved to the Greek East, the core nation of the Empire ceased to be the Latins. Then on, the core nation of the Empire were the Greeks. And let us just say that the Greeks DID NOT CARE! I am a Greek, that is not something I am particularly proud of, but truly, the Greeks did not care about the West. Make no mistake, this was not any "retaliation" about Latin Roman's earlier conquest and destructions brought upon the Greeks. The Greeks had grown to like the Romans as much as Romans liked the Greeks all the way, they viewed them as a brotherly people and by that time equally civilized, they recognized a past common ancestry, they had the same religion, first the 12 Gods, then the philosophical currents and later Christianity. Greeks highly esteemed of the Roman Imperial system, its administration and had fully adopted the political term "Roman" and identified with it, even more so when the term was Greeks (whether of Greek origins or not, "rome" is a Greek word, it means "power"). However, how to put it otherwise... Greeks were "localists". I.e. they would not bother to send their kids to die in some far fetched land just to protect some Gauls or Iberians ex-barbarians who got only recently romanized - al that said nothing to them. You also need to count the fact that we talk about an era when western Europe was nothing special to fight for really, as in spite of the population being 45%-55%, or who knows, even 50%-50%, about 85% of the Empire's economic output and about 98% of its civilizational output was produced south-and-east of Rome = in the Hellenic-Hellenistic world, i.e. in the ethnic Greek lands and in the lands where Greeks ruled (and Greeks continued to rule in Egypt and Syria governmentally and culturally even within the Roman Empire as it paid off for Romans to maintain the status quo). So even aside the lack of sentimental attachment to the West, there was no economic or geostrategic interest to consecrate resources to save the West.
Don't get this wrong, it is not that nobody was interested. There were attempts to kick out the Goths from Italy and unroot the Vandals from North Africa, initially with no success and eventually during Justinian's time with great success, taken by ultra-capable generals such as Belisarius and Narses. But it was just so futile. By that time the western regions of Italy, Spain and North Africa had been so thoroughly plundered, the population had so much reduced and the remaining ones were so hopeless and so incapable of reacting that it would require a continuous lifeline from Constantinople to sustain them as provinces of the Empire. Perhaps the loss of Sardenia is most exemplary : Sardenia was not actually invaded, they were happy within the Roman Empire of Constantinople, they were paying their taxes, even sending a military guard, "the Sardenians" to the Emperor, until the point the Empire ceased to send them emissaries, basically forgetting them, so they figured out they were on their own and continued so, quite a very anti-climactic end there! The reason? It was just too bothersome to maintain that contact with Sardinia when the Empire was struggling to keep South Italy after having lost North Italy to Lombards after having tried for long to keep the Roman presence there (note too that it was already in the late 600s when the Islamic piracy had already started in the Mediterranean).
People just don't understand that the early Middle Ages were one of the most chaotic periods of human history that can only be compared with the Late Bronze Age Collapse. It didn't matter how powerful was the Eastern Roman Empire when even the last barbarian tribe had more or less comparable weapons (horses, lances, swords and bows and armors etc.) and when they were pouring into Europe from Asia, or from North Europe to South Europe in the millions. Just imagine the 2015 "refugee crisis" of 5 million illegal immigrants pouring into the European Union being actually not 5 but 20 to 30 million immigrants of which 10 to 15 million men of fighting age armed with tanks, canons, aircraft and drones (!!!) and you have the picture of what we talk about. This is what the Eastern Roman Empire was dealing with... oh... all that while facing the world's No2 Empire, the Sassanid Iranians... so in the EU example the EU would have to face these millions of well-armed invaders all while fighting Putin's Russia! Crazy? Well that was the reality back then. The relatively calm times of the earlier Roman Empire were the exception not the norm precisely because they were "too calm" (and no, not because of the 33 legions that Rome had - it was just that there were no big time enemies around to threaten the Empire - as soon as these appeared they attacked with success).... while the times of the Eastern Roman Empire were also an exception but this time for being too agitated.
So this is the reason overall why the Eastern Roman Empire did not bother much :
1) they actually bothered but they just bothered themselves a little, not a lot
2) ... so it was not enough and the overall project of "reconquista" was seen as futile
However, we need to note again that this was the overwhelming Greek attitude : the Greeks proved to be localists, they did not bother much about the non-Greek periphery whom they viewed as NPCs. The same was noted not just for the western regions but also for Egypt and Syria. By that time, the Greek populations had dwindled there, still numerous but nowhere near their numbers back in the earlier days, therefore the Greeks overall lost interest. They could not care less - and none is going to tell you that, not even the historians of the day, you just need to start reading between the lines here. When the Arabs rose up to threaten Syria, they had sent mainly Armenians and Georgians to stop the first islamic armies at Yarmuk with only a minority of Greek troops there - and yes, this is the No1 reason why the Roman army lost at Yarmuk (Armenians and Georgians were worthy troops but had inexperienced leaderships). They hardly did an effort to reconquer these lands and when 3 centuries later, Nicephoros Phocas, who was such a phenomenal general that even without great investments, managed to beat the Arabs so badly that they called him "the Devil" and he was about to clear them out of all Syria, the population back in Constantinople was seriously against him, he became unpopular, which fueled Tsimiskes' ambitions to exploit the public sentiment, murder him and take his throne. We talk of a general, later Emperor till his murder, who brought victories and people hated him for doing so. Just like with Justinian 4 centuries earlier, a particularly unpopular Emperor back then precisely for sending men and resources to far flung lands.
It thus indeed all comes down to (also, among all other that) "Greeks did not care". Eventually at the times of Basil II the Greeks got what they wanted : more or less a Greek ethno-state with a bit of periphery on the edges to use as bumbers / shock-absorbers. And who would had thought it, they kept doing their national hobby, i.e. civil wars! LOL! That was one of the many reasons why the Empire just couldn't keep it up as an Imperial system and collapsed within less than a century, until it was resuscitated by Emperor Alexios Komnenos but who by that time run the state, what was a Greek ethnostate, as his personal kingdom, not anymore as an Empire.
Italy had its revenge in 1204
I think the wording you use can be confusing for novice history fans. You make it sound as if they were two distinct empires,whereas, it was always a single empire. When the empire was divided in 4 by Diocletian, we don’t refer to each area ruled by their Caesar/Augustus as the northwestern/southwestern Roman Empire and/or the northeastern/southeastern Roman Empire. It’s more accurate to say the eastern half or western half of the Roman empire in the context of this video.
YES!
The inevitable fall of the west ,was a repeat of the ancient invasion of young nations in Europe two thousand years before: the womb of the east produced enough people to enforce an invasin in Europe because of necessity. The Huns moved to twe West, the Gothic tribes of the Ukrainian planes pushed the Germans for space,and the Germans,who were three and four times more populated than the years of Antonine dynasty, floated the empire....
Not as strongly as left them to die but moving to Constantinople, meaning they accepted change, and those who accepted change, lived to carry the legitimate Roman citizenship these people acquire in 212.
All in all it would've been the best if someone other than Heraclius came to throne in the East
But why did the emperors and other powerful people prefer Constantinople and left Rome? Why did Rome become less important?
Weil man sich auf die Sassaniden Konzentrieren wollte. Deshalb hat man eine weitere Hauptstadt gegründet. Damit der Kaiser auf die Bedrohungen aus dem Osten schneller reagieren konnte. Und außerdem Hatte man allgemein erkannt dass, das Reich zu groß war. Als das es nur ein Kaiser verteidigen konnte. Deshalb hat es Deokletian ja auch in vier Verwaltungseinheiten geteilt. Die Jeweils von Vier Kaisern reagiert wurden. Und diese Reichsteile mussten mindestens von jemandem mit dem Titel Augustus oder zumindest Ceaser reagiert werden. Weil Armeen die nicht direkt von einem Kaiser Kommandiert wurden. Seit dem 3. Jahrhundert immer mehr dazu neigten. Ursupartoren zu erheben.
The east could have done more, yes, BUT I think internal issues along with natural disasters is the main reason the west fell. Just my opinion.
👍👍👍
The fall of the Western Roman Empire was not only the fault of the barbarians and civil wars, but also of Byzantium. Since the Eastern Roman Empire interfered in the political affairs of the West and there was no stability there, a good example is the emperors John and Glycerius. They were both good rulers for the Western Romans, but the Byzantines were angry that they were not appointed emperors by them, although they both wanted good neighborly relations with the Greeks of Constantinople.
It is very symbolic that the emperor of the East Zeno, who abolished the title of emperor of the West in 480 after the death of Julius Nepos, was buried alive as punishment for this stupid act!
The heck are you talking about bro that’s a story fabricated by 11th century Byzantine writers with no evidence from any previous sources. He just died of Epilepsy.
And Zeno saved the Eastern Empire from the Goths in a time when an Arian Goth was appointed Ceasar and heir of the Eastern Throne by the Germanic puppet master Aspar. Without Leo and Zeno the Eastern Empire faces the same Germanic death as the west.
Also you can’t ignore that the East sent competent men with reinforcements like Anthemius too
@@tylerellis9097 Accept the objective truth that Byzantium prevented the Western Roman Empire from gaining political stability. After all, it was because of the Greeks of Constantinople that emperors such as John, Avitus and Glycerius were dethroned, although they could have preserved the Western Roman Empire. It turns out that the Byzantines decided to overthrow them only because they did not personally appoint them emperors in the "West", even though these rulers of the West wanted peace with Byzantium!
@ I don’t know why you keep saying Greeks, All the Men sent west were done so by Latin Emperors or their Germanic puppet masters. It was Theodosius in the first place who smashed the Western Roman armies in the civil wars and he was from the west himself. The Eastern Empire inherited the policy he set as United Emperor in which the Eastern Emperor was the Senior Emperor of the two. And the Western Empire Intervened first in Eastern politics when Stilicho had Rufinus assassinated and tried to take eastern Illyria from the Eastern Empire with Alaric. It’s a two way street the West isn’t innocent.
@@РимскийОрел Do you have any concrete evidence that the mediocrities known as Joannes, Avitus and Glycerius had the competence necessary to truly turn things around?
@@septimiusseverus343 Understand that if the Byzantines had not interfered in the political affairs of the Western Roman Empire, then it could have obviously existed much longer, even if only within the borders of Italy.
The western Roman empire could of survived if it had done to Gaul and Iberia what it done to Britannia. Abandon the legions for Italy.
I think fans of Roman history completely lose the plot. The Italian aristocracy had run the Mediterranean between the end of the Second Punic War up until the the Third Century Crisis. At that point the Italian nobles had as much power as any other regional nobles. They might have had more tradition and some deeper pockets, but the Illyrian military aristocracy emerged from their failure and took over the show for 100 years. Valentinian is the last major emperor to prioritize the West, but he did so for military reasons, not tradition or deference. The powers of the emperor had ALWAYS been in the East because of Egypt and the twin frontiers of the Danube and Persia, it just became more obvious due to the collapse of the old frontier system. The only way the West survives is by bowing down to the whims on Constantinople, which was never gonna happen, even when Gaul and Spain were overrun and Africa under rebellion. The West deserved to fall for its failure to politically consolidate after the short lived Gallic Empire. The Western court was more interested in choosing sides between its key generals instead of making sure they're all keeping their eyes on the ball. The civil war between Aetius, Felix and Bonifatius made sure that both Spain and Africa fell, and left Aetius with maybe half of Spain/Gaul and Italy. Aetius even didn't press Atilla after their epic clash just in case he needed his help against his own allies.
So the West was today's California, and the East was today's Florida.
This is such a freaking amateur take.
Did the West ever help the East?
a big mistake in history
Here is my view.
Rome was only in turkey. The vatican was built in 1453 , after a religious disagreement in turkey at the haggis Sophia.
During the disagreements about if jesus was part man , part God, what text should be permited in the bible , was mary a God or a human , the arab Christians broke off to what became islam , and another part of the church fled after the arab armies took the city of Constantinople. part of the church fled to italy in the 1300s and started building the vatican, then wrote history books claiming, this new palce is the real rome .
At this point, the church in italy had a monopoly on all history in western europe written. You challenge it, you would be in serious danger , after one or 2 generations the state sponsored lie becomes fact in the minds of the following generations.
1. No roman scrolls exist. Period.
2. No roman swords or shields exists. ( expet they found one in england only ) that seems completely fishy.
3. European countries have been making fake ruins. ( look up fake ruins in europe)
4. roman Empire in turkey spoke greek, and the italy rome spoke roman? That doesn't add up.
5 . We have proof of turkey Rome.
6. Random ruins are not enough because ruins are all over the Mediterranean, including Africa.
My belief is that the rome italy was completely fabricated with stories by the Catholic Church in the 1600s.
Mike
Wow buddy you are on some special crack, can I get some of that too? 😂
Haggis Sophia, the greatest church in Scotland.
the only thing that seems fishy here is your comment, ramblings of a mad man.
Eastern Roman by blood half Roman real Eastern Romans were not ethnic Greeks but Native Anatolians, i am half Türkic Cuman and i can say Italians and Native Anatolians share ancestry real Romans were Anatolian Neolithic Farmers Mediterranean looking and there is proof the Romans of Western Roman Empire were 45-50% Anatolian Neolithic farmer and the other was mixed but the time of Julius Caesar they were many Anatolian Neolithic farmers Romans but barbarian invasions in Western Roman Empire Germanic and Celtic tribes change the ancestry of Western Romans, but in Tuscany and other places in Italy they still look like Romans Mediterranean type, in movies such as barbarians with Arminius, Varus and other Romans resemble the Ancient Romans real Romans had brown skin not white skin