Gibbon's work is no doubt masterful, but I do wonder how much people tend to take it as gospel rather than looking at the primary sources that he used himself to build his compendium. Are these sources not still available? Gibbons is about as "ancient" as George Washington.
Marcus Aurelius had grandchildren by one of his daughters. One of them was called Pompeianus & other named Lucius. I’m shocked none of the them tried to claim the throne in the wake of Commodus’s assassination
Imagine being known as the one guy who turned down the most important job in history. But I think Pompeianus would possibly have been assassinated if he had become emperor eventually, and he knew that so he declined. Although I also think Commodus would've loved to just be a gladiator and have fun in the arena for the next 50 years and just avoid being emperor entirely. It's also possible that Pompeianus could've shared rule with Commodus as co-emperor and maybe he could have taught Commodus how to be a good ruler. Or Commodus could've gotten mad at him and had him executed somehow... it's all impossible to know for sure.
Antique historians have a tendency to make stories out of history. One classic trope is the watershed decision. If sources resemble a Shakespearean drama, we shoud read them with a grain of salt.
@@doppelwaffen if commodus had died of sickness as a kid, marcus would have had to appoint someone like pompeianus, who would certainly have been a better ruler.
@@yunleung2631 i think its ironic that the grandson of Marcus would also be killed by the son of Septimius Severus, who was a fan of Marcus and the Antonines and wanted to restore their system of rule after the death of Commodus.
He overlooks the depletion of gold and silver due to trade with the far east. The import of spices, silks, jewels etc from far away lands was one of the big reasons for the shortage of specie in the Roman Empire. Even then people did not understand the consequences of trade deficits. The Roman elite/wealthy classes gave little thought to the overall consequences of their purchases.
And you think the Romans never saw that gold and silver again? That the Persians and others didn't import certain items from the Roman Empire in the West? Or, that they didn't trade with other peoples who also had business dealing with the the Romans? Trade (and the exchange of hard currency) goes both ways.
@@monadsingleton9324Not always. Trade with China from the Tudors to the Georgians, and their equivalents in other European countries, was primarily on cash and carry basis, which saw the need for an export article to China. Opium was selected and the collapse of China in the 19th century was the result, courtesy of the various Opium Wars fought to ensure access to Chinese markets.
@@mcbeaty3971 You've got the Roman Empire confused with Qing China. All the gold and silver that was going out of the Roman Empire was coming back into the Roman Empire via trade. Instead, as Maiorianus pointed out above and in his previous video, what destroyed the Roman currency was not a lack of supply of specie, it was the constant devaluation of the currency. By putting less gold and silver into their coins, the Roman government could expand the money supply in order to cover it ever increasing expenditures. Kind of like what America has been doing now for decades with its currency.
Excellent video. I agree, diseases and currency factors are greatly underestimated. As for Pompeianus, I find him much in common more with Livius, from the "Fall of the Roman Empire" 1964 year movie (which is much more accurate than 'Gladiator').
Great story, I use this penultimate era to teach an elementary school program about the Roman Army. I would like to see a short about the Battle of the Rain.
The same flaws that were laid bare in the 160s AD were already present long before then, as early as the 80s BC with the rise of military strongmen like Marius and Sulla. You could easily imagine a world in which a less capable statesman than Caesar and Augustus rises to the top of the Roman world, and things begin going south much earlier. The same thing happened again in the 60s AD, and later in the 90s AD with the rise of the Flavians and later Antonines. The Roman system was very susceptible to incapable rulers making the worst decisions in the worst times, and it lucked out with capable ones 4 times.
@@MiguelDS5547 a dictatorship with unclear rules of succession and assassination as an acceptable tool for regime change will get far more bad rulers. A Roman Senate with a new Consul elected every couple years would have been far more efficient at governing the empire.
@@MiguelDS5547 An autocratic system where the leader has ultimate power and which anybody with a strong enough military position can make an attempt at the leadership is much worse.
I agree with you that it all went to hell in 83BC. We can see the lead up to it in the social wars and the troubled political climate. You could see the growing wealth gap among Roman rich and poor culminating with the deaths of the Gracchi brothers. The populares had to appeal to more extreme tribunes to get their fair share. The optimates became more stalwart in their obstructionism in retaliation. It ended with political stalemate which could only be broken by civil war.
One Of The Reasons Marcus Aurelius Chose Commodus As His Sucessor Was Só He Would Not Be Assassinated As A Pretender Should He Claim The imperial Throne.
Thank you so much for this. I've read about this specific time period before but my memory of it has become muddled over time. It's all coming back. Really admirable job.
The video strings together negative events in Roman history in a way that makes it sound like the empire was continuously in crisis and decline. Commodus (r. 180 to 193) might have been an embarrassment as emperor, but the economy recovered as the Antonine plague petered out. Septimius Severus (r. 193 to 211) and Caracalla (r. 211 to 217) increased legionary pay and triggered an inflationary spiral. Rainfall and solar radiation started to decline around 220. This presumably led to a drop in agricultural output.
I think things started to go wrong in 83BC because of Sulla's civil war. This was the turning point where Roman armies began to pledge loyalty to their general rather than the Roman state. Societal cohesion based on one man's charisma rather than national identity paved the way for the countless civil wars and succession crisies to come.
Well, things started to go badly wrong from Hannibal time... or more probably from Brennus' Rome sack. Well, thinking on it, probably when Remus crossed the pomerium and was killed.
Commudus.... "Anyone who feels they can buy your loyalty Will also, write you off, just as easily, if not feel it is their privelage to, since they "Paid for you like a commodity." Now apply that to capitalism and consumerism"
Still baffled how Commodus turned out the way he did having as a father a man like Marcus. The mistake of early emperors was to not expand the empire to german territories and romanize the tribes. It would've been costly but I think it would've been a good investment (more than Britain) imo.
There was NOTHING in Germania worth going after, so there was nothing to justify the costs of the conquests. There needs to be a financial gain. The Celts in Gaul and Britain had cities, and precious metals, and some even had small economies with their own coins. Germania had none of that, the average village size being 10 huts. Britain had Celtic cities and tin, and even then it was probably still a net loss to the Empire. When Julius Ceasar came back from his conquest of Gaul, he brought so much gold back that the Roman Economy had an overload and the price of gold fell by 33% (or, look at it like costs increased by 33% due to inflation, due to all the gold). Gaul, worth the conquest costs. Germania, not so much.
As far as Commodus goes, there is an old phrase that simply sums it up. **Hard times create strong men, strong men create easy times, easy times create weak men, and weak men bring hard times...**
Marcus is overrated emperor. He allowed the Germanic tribes to become a thorn on the side of he empire and never fully submitted them. He also persecuted people within his empire.
Wonderful video! Buffs of pop history like to put things in neat boxes with precise dates and timelines but real history doesn't always work like that. It's especially fascinating that modern sciences have allowed us to view historical events through powerful lenses we didn't have before. We can now more easily see the fingerprints of climate change, disease and malnutrition that were unknown to us before. The seeds of Rome's decline/collapse were sown nearly from their initial rise to regional powerhouse.
In other words, the Pax Romana ended in 165 AD. While Marcus Aurelius held everything together, the likes of Commodus (everything), Severus (currency debasement to 50%), and Caracalla (everything) damaged the Empire beyond permanent repair.
Honestly I think it started all the way back in 44 BC, when the republic ended. While a military dictatorship might've been needed to stabilize the empire, it led to megalomaniacs vying for power, first of all Caligula. When there was good emperors, there was immense prosperity, but when there were bad emperors(which happened more often than not), things fell apart. I feel like Rome would've advanced more if power remained in the power of the people and Senate.
Elected officials provide stability and do away with the succession crisies which plagued rome every 20 years, or 2 years, or 2 months. There were so many times where usurpers tried to restore the senate to power but died or were assassinated before they could make it happen, or were corrupted by the power.
@@jonwarland272 Exactly. The military dictatorship that followed the Republic was, to put it simply, a trainwreck. There were momentary interludes of stability(Five good emperors) but at any given moment there was a civil war, usurper, succession or constitutional crisis, or barbarian invasion. Sometimes all at once.
I think the reasons for the decline of the empire are founded in some self- destructional tendencies like them being prone to civil war, authorities which basically acted as enemies of the inhabitants/ citizens and maybe some other reasons I overlooked. We see such tendencies as early as in the late republic with all its prescriptions and civil wars.
@@jonwarland272 If you go to the Wikipedia page for socks, there's a photo of 1500 year old Egyptian socks, remarkably well preserved: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock
The Antonin Plague was the single most important reason Rome never bounced back from. Historically Rome had many big crisis events but nothing hurts an empire like population decline.
You should made a video about the output of Gold and silver.. romans are running out silver and Gold mines?if It Is true,not surprisly that alexander severus tried to fix the economy and meet a lot of mutiny,that avoided the balcanization of sassanid empire
The issues with the Roman political structure and its deadly problems over succession and holding onto power were laid bare in 68AD following the end of the Julio/Claudians and the demise of Nero. In fact it could be argued this was never resolved by Augustus. This started after 146BC when the Senate refused to power share and this eventually led to the demise of the Republic. Rome could have collapsed in 68AD and was only saved by Vespasian's intervention (come the time...come the man). It was even shaky after the end of Domitian and the Flavians. Rome never 'fixed' the succession issues. It always kept reappearing and often the 'wrong' leader came to power. Your clip concerning debasement, the plagues with the resultant loss of manpower, and buying out the barbarians, while valid, are really issues that exacerbated the ongoing problems of succession that often occurred at the death of an emperor and the quality of the potential 'successor'. This was made worse by the militaristic nature of the Roman Empire where having the biggest and best legions counted in the equation to grab power. Often these people didnt have Rome's best interests at heart. Civil war thus became a norm.
I am unconvinced. The 3rd century crisis is a more convincing point in time. It is the first time that large parts of the empire sought independence from central imperial authority. Local elites were willing to support independent regimes. Regardless of all the problems of the mid 2nd century, the romans remained dedicated to and confident in the imperial system. There's no comparison.
9:00. I think the problem was that the Germans were built for war. The average Roman just didn’t have that type of Military skill. + these German tribes were small and Gave to much fight for the Romans to quell. The average German Soldier/Warrior was a lot to handle for the italics & Greeks.
1:10 Remus: "Have you decided what our city will be, brother?" Romulus: "Of course, brother. It shall be that heavenly garden that the Jewish merchants mention in their stories. A unique paradise that will beautify this land rotten with violence. A place where war does not exist. A place where there are no oppressors and oppressed. No one will be more graceful than anyone else. Men shall love each other as brothers and the most beautiful women will make love to each other like lovers. Our city shall prosper with the peace symbolized by trade. And one day... one day it will occupy all corners of the Earth. And that city...that paradise...will be called...Roma" Remus: "...That's the stupidest name for a city I've ever heard in my life." Romulus: *Stabs Remus* "SHUT UP!!!"
Things started to go wrong once Rome stopped expanding and began to implode inwards due a multitude of sucession criseses and economic disasters by terrible emperors Having strengthened barbarian hordes and exposed borders tends to result in more frequent invasions
What exactly was this disease? How do we know that it was spread by bathing? Wikipedia says it was either small pox or measles. I suspect it was a form of one of these diseases that we haven't encountered.
The republic was definitely gone when a son was successor. Rather than searching for the best of the best. The civil wars over who should be emperor left rome open. Also many a great warriors fought in gladiator fights that could have been in the military. Perhaps they could have expanded south. More gold and more recruits.
I'd say the problems that destroyed Rome were largely present from the time of the late Republic More specifically from the time of the military reforms that created a professional army. From then on Rome/Constantinople never found a way to rein in ambitious/powerful/popular generals, so the government was never stable.
Currency debasement plays a huge role in the rise and fall of “empires”. Hence the decline of American dominance and rise of BRICS etc. History rhymes/repeats. US hasn’t used real money since August 1971. Only because US dollar is world reserve currency (petrodollar), it’s lasted this long. Things are again changing. Cheers
Some could argue that the fall of Rome was a necessity just as the fall of the Macedonian Empire/Diodachi and Persia. I would argue that whatever fall should happen, should lead to a further expansion that was had existed before. However, the necessity of a fall should be evident when the fall of a system is self-evident and incapable of reform, which is quite apparent if a Kingdom or an Empire is too large and not structured well enough to manage its periphery. If it takes months for a message to travel, then that is too long. I would argue a month is length of time necessary to determine if something is too big. If it takes more than a month for information to travel, then it is too much. However, who is to say it couldn't exist as an extensive confederation in which enough collaborating systems were regulated and utilized throughout enough of this combined entity that it can still manage even with different governments and heads of state. You wouldn't be able to begin unifying lands extensive until the Bronze Age Collapse because it led to enough weaken states that one could easily conquer them all if they didn't get too themselves. The best country for this would had been Egypt. So to begin this empire, we will have Egypt conquer the entire Near East from Elam to Mycenae. We will not include the Gulf lands and Indus Valley, because they didn't develop enough and too detached by water to be of any use other than for trade purposes. However, Egypt would eventually fall as it depended too much on the ruling house to manage itself and had no other notable institutions other than the priests, which wouldn't have sufficient influence as each land had its own Gods and monotheism had yet been developed or successful to stamp out such practices. Ramses III was the Pharaoh at that time, Pharaoh meaning head of the Royal House, hinting it was the House that ruled and the Pharoah was simply the head of that house. Ancient Egypt was an oligarchy, who knew. We would need to vamp up each prior dynasty to guarantee Egypt would flourish by the time of the Twentieth Dynasty and to be in a position of Napoleon like strength to crush all lands during the Bronze Age Collapse. We can trace 1550 BCE as the rebuilding of Egypt into a strong power. We also need to make the Hittites just about as strong as it may complicate matters. We need them to weaken very quickly after the Battle of Khadesh so they can easily be subdued by the Sea Peoples, while Egypt gets even stronger so it can easily crush them and then proceed further to conquer the entire Near East, again from Mycenae to Elam. However, this New Kingdom as this is the phase of Egypt's history will fall at 1069 BCE. So from 1178 to 1069, Egypt will rule a mighty empire from Kush to Mycenae to Elam and practically all lands in between. Although, this is more correctly between 1155 and 1069 as it would make more sense for Ramses III to spend his entire life after the Second Battle against the Sea Peoples in 1178 to 1155 when he passed away to bring order to the lands of the civilized people known at that time. Who should take over at 1069? What existed at that time? There was Assyria during its Middle Phase, but also Israel. Israel emerged as a united kingdom in 1047, which makes a decent size interregnum for the Egyptian Empire. So in other words, the Egyptian Empire -> Israelite Empire from 1047 to 930 BCE. The Neo-Assyrian Empire had emerged at 911 and fell at around 612 BCE. So we have the Egyptian Empire (1155 to 1047 BCE) -> Israelite Empire (1047 to 911 BCE) -> Mesopotamian Empire (911 to 539 BCE) -> Persian Empire (539 to 330 BCE) -> Macedonian Empire (330 to 30 BCE) -> Roman Empire (30 BCE to 395 CE) -> Byzantine Empire (395 to 800 CE) -> Frankish Empire (800 to 1087 CE) -> Norman Empire (1087 to 1453 CE) -> Turkish Empire (1453 to 1808 CE) -> European Empire (1808 to 1945 CE) -> American Empire (1945 to the Present). I could had made many smaller durational Empires such as breaking up the Frankish into Carolingian, Ottonian and Salian as well as doing the same for the European Empire between French and German just the same as I could do for the Aramaic being Assyrian and Babylonian, but such empires would lack significance to their impact in history if it is so short and I believe an Empire should last longer than a century if it is to hold a significant impact on human development. The short empire is the Israelite Empire which only needs to initiate the spark of Monotheism. I also extended how long the Egyptian and Israelite Empires would last to fit what happened after with no interregnums. For each empire a different language is spoken and utilized as the Imperial Standard. Ancient Egyptian -> Hebrew -> Aramaic -> Farsi -> Greek -> Latin -> Aromanian (Cannot just choose Latin or Greek again) -> Frankish (Flemish Dutch, basically) -> Norman French (This is basically French with a Norman twist to it) -> Ottoman Turkish -> Luxembourgish (Cannot choose French again and Standard German wouldn't really fit starting in France, this language at least exists there and therefore is a possibility) -> English The American Empire would have conquered all of the Americas, form a union with Oceania (Australia and New Zealand), but also subdued Europe and Asia as well as hold strong influence over all of Africa. Russia, China and India would be the three big countries independent of American influence, but large or significant chunks of these countries would be independent and would be under direct American influence. This doesn't just consist of Taiwan as an example, but also areas of Northern Russia, the Chinese Coast, Southwest China, Western China, Parts of Coastal India (Including all of Bengal), but even more. Pretty much the world is dominated by America, but five independent entities exist, three large enough to act as antagonists. The two other independent countries which aren't so big either (at least in terms of population) which are chiefly just neutral on this matter are Switzerland and Siberia.
What's not talked about in this video is the erosion of Classical Latin and the spread of vulgar Latin and Greek loanwords. Together also with the rise of cults like Glykon, Mithras, Isis and Christos, which weakened the strength of the appreciation for traditional Roman gods.
Summary 0:00: 🏛 이 비디오는 로마 제국의 쇠퇴 초기 징후에 대해 논의하며, 165년의 전염병으로 시작됩니다. 3:58: 🏛 이 비디오는 로마 제국이 2세기에 직면한 초기 침공과 위기에 대해 논의합니다. 7:08: 🏛 비디오는 마르쿠스 아우렐리우스의 통치와 그 시대 로마 제국이 직면한 어려움에 대해 논의합니다. 10:49: 🏛 이 비디오는 로마 황제 마르쿠스 아우렐리우스의 계승과 후계자 콤모두스의 로마 제국에 미치는 영향에 대해 논의합니다. 14:47: 🏛 2세기의 위기는 로마 제국의 근본적인 결함을 드러내었습니다 Recapped using Tammy AI
In other words, the Romans never learned when enough is enough. If they satisfied with what they have, they will have no such problems with their economy, society and military.
This is interesting, and I believe that the most important development is the start of the coin debasement that would later undermine confidence in the Emperor massively. One can't really discuss this without drawing parallels to today's inflation problem. Debasing the money (today: currency) is a subtle and pervasive way to steal from every citizen. It causes a hard to identify loss of confidence in the system (empire), and sows the seeds for major trouble. Three main causes of debasement: - The loss of active gold/silver mines. - The need to pay upkeep for large armies - The bribes (ehm, treaty sums) to the barbarians Trade deficit, budget deficit and paying off your enemies will lead to a massive hollowing out of imperial power. Compare that to Eastern Rome: They managed to keep their money sound for many centuries, wich parallels keeping the society sound. Sound money is good for society.
Commodus: "I want to be a gladiator!!!" Romans: "Well, guess things will get better over time" *A death of Commodus, an infamous Severan Dynasty, 50 years of crisis, a Tetrarchy, a Christianization of the Empire, various civil wars, a permanent division, three sacks of Rome and countless barbarian invasions later* Romans: 🖕
Pandemic, economic and military problems confronted a multi cultural, diverse society. Homogeneous societies can deal with such problems better. Diversity is not a virtue.
@@ErinWinslow evidence lies in history. Diverse and multi cultural societies offer more probs and are less resilient than homogeneous ones. Thats not at all a secret.
LOL? But what exactly were they different with? Are they not all part of the same species?))) As for the romans, believe it or not but they were multicultural since the founding of rome. Ever heard of Sabines? Etruscans?
Rome became less tolerant in its latter years. It started off polytheistic absorbing the gods of conquered cultures into its pantheon. In 312 with Constantine, and 381 with Theodosius all religions other than Christianity were banned. The religious intolerance fuelled unrest throughout the mostly pagan empire and accellerated Rome's collapse.
So it was a case of build in wekneses on the way the Empire worked that seeds is desmise. Rome was triing to rule half of Europe, North Africa and the Levante whit the same tools and institutions it ruled central Italy. The Senatus Romanus continue to be a colection of the richest families of the city of Rome. The provinces had no representation on the central goverment.
Well the Brits can't even stop thousands of young men of fighting age coming over the English Channel on rubber dinghies, so let's not be too hard on the 2nd century Romans, lol.
Deliberate genocidal eradication of the most dedicated psychopaths was necessary but the means were lacking. The savage tribes scorned Roman weakness, and were determined to exterminate as much of Roman civilization as possible... how many hundreds of thousands of mutilated skeletons have been revealed so far in the frontier regions?
It's problematic to call the Eastern Roman Empire the last Roman state. Ethnically it was Greek. The ethnically and locally Roman state after the 8th century were the Papal States, ruled to different extend throughout history by the Roman bishop, the Pontifex Maximus. This state spoke a language, that evolved from Latin and was absorbed into the Italian state, which became partly Roman then, in 1870.
I disagree - it started after Rome's first successful conquest, c 500 BCE. I don't know what that was, but that's not important. What IS important is that Rome built its growth on conquest, not commerce. And, much like a shark that has to swim in order to not drown, Rome HAD to continue to conquer in order to supply itself with income/wealth. As it conquered more territory & population, it had to go deeper and deeper. The cost of conquest grew, much as a circle's area grows exponentially as the radius expands. Initially highly profitable, as Rome had to cover and maintain its expansion, the profitability started to decline until it became marginal, then negative. But, as a conquering nation, it could never retrench because everyone you've conquered in the past - that's still alive - is ready to join forces with its worst neighbors to destroy Rome. Epidemics/pandemics are major events, but I'm sure the barbarians faced similar "events" although densely populated cities like Rome got hit harder. That rather than bathing culture which removed disease bearing dirt and grime. An open and clean facility is very unlikely to have contributed significantly to the spread of the plague, the primary vector being vermin, fleas, rabid animals, etc. in tenements.
I know if you believe what I thinking but it was Roman Empire's destiny to decline. I mean the reconquest could happen under Justinian but suddenly a plague emerge. I believe there was a higher being(Divine) intervention the Rome should and must have to fall.
In the 4th century AD, Rome still may have accounted for 20 percent of the world population and 30 percent of world GDP. Rome had the structural strength of a national state, access to advanced technology and insane logistics. They could move a legion from Scotland to Syria within 3 months and equip and supply 100.000 men in the field. To suggest that this behemoth could fall to some barbarian warbands appears outright ludicrous. And yet it happened. For some reasons, Rome proved unable to mobilise its resources.
They mobilised their resources alright. Only they mobilised against themselves, every time an emperor died. Usurpers would pull garrisons from the border defences to march on Rome and leave the doors wide open for invaders. I wonder if the romans lost more men to civil war than external threats..
@@jonwarland272 I don't buy the civil war theory. Rome had been waging civil wars since the late republic. On the one hand, civil wars weakened the empire, but on the other hand they were the hard times that made great leaders. This changed in the 5th century. Neither Honorius nor Valentinian III. would have ruled longer than one day without the protection from Constantinople.
Commodus wasn't bad, this is just christian Propaganda from Ridley Scotts Gladiator movie. Read: "John S. McHugh: The Emperor Commodus. God and Gladiator"
By God/ Jesus well Empire's rise and fall and when he decrees an Empire to follow there is no stopping it just ask the Babylonians the Persians and the Greeks with Alexander's Empire and finally Rome which were all prophesied to fall in the Bible in the Book of Daniel read it
You're rehashing the same topics. There's other things to talk about... like the economy, the literature, the politics, the geography, etc... yet all you can seem to talk about is the fall.... the fall.... the fall ..... the fall..
🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus
I thought this was more commonly known since Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire begins precisely with Commodus' ascension to the throne.
Gibbon's work is no doubt masterful, but I do wonder how much people tend to take it as gospel rather than looking at the primary sources that he used himself to build his compendium. Are these sources not still available? Gibbons is about as "ancient" as George Washington.
Marcus Aurelius had grandchildren by one of his daughters. One of them was called Pompeianus & other named Lucius. I’m shocked none of the them tried to claim the throne in the wake of Commodus’s assassination
That is disgusting
@@nealkelly9757 ?. He didnt f his daughters lol
@@nealkelly9757 He means his daughter was married to another man and she had children who could claim the throne.
@@nealkelly9757 lol
I'm not sure if grandkids were ever in contention
Imagine being known as the one guy who turned down the most important job in history. But I think Pompeianus would possibly have been assassinated if he had become emperor eventually, and he knew that so he declined. Although I also think Commodus would've loved to just be a gladiator and have fun in the arena for the next 50 years and just avoid being emperor entirely. It's also possible that Pompeianus could've shared rule with Commodus as co-emperor and maybe he could have taught Commodus how to be a good ruler. Or Commodus could've gotten mad at him and had him executed somehow... it's all impossible to know for sure.
Antique historians have a tendency to make stories out of history. One classic trope is the watershed decision. If sources resemble a Shakespearean drama, we shoud read them with a grain of salt.
@@doppelwaffen if commodus had died of sickness as a kid, marcus would have had to appoint someone like pompeianus, who would certainly have been a better ruler.
The general? He married Marcus Aurelius’ daughter and had a kid. Who got killed by Caracalla.
@@yunleung2631 i think its ironic that the grandson of Marcus would also be killed by the son of Septimius Severus, who was a fan of Marcus and the Antonines and wanted to restore their system of rule after the death of Commodus.
He overlooks the depletion of gold and silver due to trade with the far east. The import of spices, silks, jewels etc from far away lands was one of the big reasons for the shortage of specie in the Roman Empire. Even then people did not understand the consequences of trade deficits. The Roman elite/wealthy classes gave little thought to the overall consequences of their purchases.
Do you think that severan dynasty had push too far the pay of the army?
And you think the Romans never saw that gold and silver again? That the Persians and others didn't import certain items from the Roman Empire in the West? Or, that they didn't trade with other peoples who also had business dealing with the the Romans?
Trade (and the exchange of hard currency) goes both ways.
@@monadsingleton9324Not always. Trade with China from the Tudors to the Georgians, and their equivalents in other European countries, was primarily on cash and carry basis, which saw the need for an export article to China. Opium was selected and the collapse of China in the 19th century was the result, courtesy of the various Opium Wars fought to ensure access to Chinese markets.
@@monadsingleton9324 Yeah that‘s what the word deficit means in this context.
@@mcbeaty3971 You've got the Roman Empire confused with Qing China. All the gold and silver that was going out of the Roman Empire was coming back into the Roman Empire via trade.
Instead, as Maiorianus pointed out above and in his previous video, what destroyed the Roman currency was not a lack of supply of specie, it was the constant devaluation of the currency. By putting less gold and silver into their coins, the Roman government could expand the money supply in order to cover it ever increasing expenditures.
Kind of like what America has been doing now for decades with its currency.
Excellent video. I agree, diseases and currency factors are greatly underestimated. As for Pompeianus, I find him much in common more with Livius, from the "Fall of the Roman Empire" 1964 year movie (which is much more accurate than 'Gladiator').
While not accurate, you gotta admit Rome looked badass in Gladiator
@@precariousworlds3029 there is no Rome in 'Gladiator', only the incorrect (oversized) Colosseum and several obscure buildings around.
@@precariousworlds3029 I ‘gotta’ nothing to you. Bye.
@@historyin3d What?
@@precariousworlds3029 He is a rebellious spirit, don't put words in his mouth lol
Great story, I use this penultimate era to teach an elementary school program about the Roman Army. I would like to see a short about the Battle of the Rain.
2:23 a certain intro theme started playing in my head
It was fuckin' Ricimer , wasnt it?!
Ricimer the Vandal scumbag
Things turned to shit long before him
The same flaws that were laid bare in the 160s AD were already present long before then, as early as the 80s BC with the rise of military strongmen like Marius and Sulla. You could easily imagine a world in which a less capable statesman than Caesar and Augustus rises to the top of the Roman world, and things begin going south much earlier. The same thing happened again in the 60s AD, and later in the 90s AD with the rise of the Flavians and later Antonines. The Roman system was very susceptible to incapable rulers making the worst decisions in the worst times, and it lucked out with capable ones 4 times.
Every system is susceptible to bad rulers. That's just the way it is.
@@MiguelDS5547 a dictatorship with unclear rules of succession and assassination as an acceptable tool for regime change will get far more bad rulers. A Roman Senate with a new Consul elected every couple years would have been far more efficient at governing the empire.
@@MiguelDS5547 An autocratic system where the leader has ultimate power and which anybody with a strong enough military position can make an attempt at the leadership is much worse.
I agree with you that it all went to hell in 83BC.
We can see the lead up to it in the social wars and the troubled political climate.
You could see the growing wealth gap among Roman rich and poor culminating with the deaths of the Gracchi brothers. The populares had to appeal to more extreme tribunes to get their fair share. The optimates became more stalwart in their obstructionism in retaliation. It ended with political stalemate which could only be broken by civil war.
@@MiguelDS5547
The U.S. constitution was written with that issue in mind.
67k subs! Wow, the hard work is paying off for this channel! That’s very impressive for a relatively niche topic!
One Of The Reasons Marcus Aurelius Chose Commodus As His Sucessor Was Só He Would Not Be Assassinated As A Pretender Should He Claim The imperial Throne.
Thank you so much for this. I've read about this specific time period before but my memory of it has become muddled over time. It's all coming back. Really admirable job.
The video strings together negative events in Roman history in a way that makes it sound like the empire was continuously in crisis and decline. Commodus (r. 180 to 193) might have been an embarrassment as emperor, but the economy recovered as the Antonine plague petered out. Septimius Severus (r. 193 to 211) and Caracalla (r. 211 to 217) increased legionary pay and triggered an inflationary spiral. Rainfall and solar radiation started to decline around 220. This presumably led to a drop in agricultural output.
Steven Saylor's historical novel DOMINUS is set during this period. I just got it the other day and can't put it down. Highly recommended!
This is what I was taught, that Commodus's reign, especially the way it ended, was first domino to fall in a centuries long line of domino's
And in the middle of all this they were just as happy to war with each other.....Unreal.
I think things started to go wrong in 83BC because of Sulla's civil war.
This was the turning point where Roman armies began to pledge loyalty to their general rather than the Roman state.
Societal cohesion based on one man's charisma rather than national identity paved the way for the countless civil wars and succession crisies to come.
Well, things started to go badly wrong from Hannibal time... or more probably from Brennus' Rome sack. Well, thinking on it, probably when Remus crossed the pomerium and was killed.
Commudus....
"Anyone who feels they can buy your loyalty
Will also, write you off, just as easily, if not feel it is their privelage to, since they "Paid for you like a commodity."
Now apply that to capitalism and consumerism"
12:40 Sounds very familiar today. 🤠
I love this channel and this video is another excellent lesson in history.
All of this in a 16 minute video is a brilliant achievement.Thank you.
Still baffled how Commodus turned out the way he did having as a father a man like Marcus.
The mistake of early emperors was to not expand the empire to german territories and romanize the tribes. It would've been costly but I think it would've been a good investment (more than Britain) imo.
Conquering Britain was certainly a disaster because it was economically unviable and became a hotbed of rebellion
Great man, bad father. Not very uncommon.
There was NOTHING in Germania worth going after, so there was nothing to justify the costs of the conquests. There needs to be a financial gain. The Celts in Gaul and Britain had cities, and precious metals, and some even had small economies with their own coins. Germania had none of that, the average village size being 10 huts. Britain had Celtic cities and tin, and even then it was probably still a net loss to the Empire. When Julius Ceasar came back from his conquest of Gaul, he brought so much gold back that the Roman Economy had an overload and the price of gold fell by 33% (or, look at it like costs increased by 33% due to inflation, due to all the gold). Gaul, worth the conquest costs. Germania, not so much.
As far as Commodus goes, there is an old phrase that simply sums it up. **Hard times create strong men, strong men create easy times, easy times create weak men, and weak men bring hard times...**
Marcus is overrated emperor. He allowed the Germanic tribes to become a thorn on the side of he empire and never fully submitted them. He also persecuted people within his empire.
Wonderful video! Buffs of pop history like to put things in neat boxes with precise dates and timelines but real history doesn't always work like that. It's especially fascinating that modern sciences have allowed us to view historical events through powerful lenses we didn't have before. We can now more easily see the fingerprints of climate change, disease and malnutrition that were unknown to us before. The seeds of Rome's decline/collapse were sown nearly from their initial rise to regional powerhouse.
In other words, the Pax Romana ended in 165 AD. While Marcus Aurelius held everything together, the likes of Commodus (everything), Severus (currency debasement to 50%), and Caracalla (everything) damaged the Empire beyond permanent repair.
Honestly I think it started all the way back in 44 BC, when the republic ended. While a military dictatorship might've been needed to stabilize the empire, it led to megalomaniacs vying for power, first of all Caligula.
When there was good emperors, there was immense prosperity, but when there were bad emperors(which happened more often than not), things fell apart.
I feel like Rome would've advanced more if power remained in the power of the people and Senate.
Elected officials provide stability and do away with the succession crisies which plagued rome every 20 years, or 2 years, or 2 months.
There were so many times where usurpers tried to restore the senate to power but died or were assassinated before they could make it happen, or were corrupted by the power.
@@jonwarland272 Exactly. The military dictatorship that followed the Republic was, to put it simply, a trainwreck. There were momentary interludes of stability(Five good emperors) but at any given moment there was a civil war, usurper, succession or constitutional crisis, or barbarian invasion. Sometimes all at once.
I think the reasons for the decline of the empire are founded in some self- destructional tendencies like them being prone to civil war, authorities which basically acted as enemies of the inhabitants/ citizens and maybe some other reasons I overlooked.
We see such tendencies as early as in the late republic with all its prescriptions and civil wars.
Very good video?
Maybe a "What would you have seen in 1454 Istanbul (Constantinople 1 year after the Turks conquered it)"?
The Legions should have worn socks more often.
Caligae look very uncomfortable without socks. Maybe we don't see them much in archaology because they degrade faster than steel and leather of shoes.
@@jonwarland272 If you go to the Wikipedia page for socks, there's a photo of 1500 year old Egyptian socks, remarkably well preserved:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock
Incredible topic. Your videos are the best !
You should do a video on the Severans!
ET SARMATICUM! Needed more emphasis on Sarmatian Iazyges and Roxolani who then become Roman Cavalry!
Knew the Antonine plague was bad but didn’t realize the invasions that occurred and were successful because of the lack of personnel due to the plague
It was during the severan dynasty when things went to hell for Rome
CAN WE GET A SCHWERPUNKT CROSSOVER!?! Schwerpunkt does such deep dives and had such insight, the fans can only benefit! 🎉🎉🎉🎉 PLEASEEEE!
4:55 sounds familiar with Russia
The Antonin Plague was the single most important reason Rome never bounced back from. Historically Rome had many big crisis events but nothing hurts an empire like population decline.
This is one of your best videos thus far.
You should made a video about the output of Gold and silver.. romans are running out silver and Gold mines?if It Is true,not surprisly that alexander severus tried to fix the economy and meet a lot of mutiny,that avoided the balcanization of sassanid empire
The issues with the Roman political structure and its deadly problems over succession and holding onto power were laid bare in 68AD following the end of the Julio/Claudians and the demise of Nero. In fact it could be argued this was never resolved by Augustus. This started after 146BC when the Senate refused to power share and this eventually led to the demise of the Republic.
Rome could have collapsed in 68AD and was only saved by Vespasian's intervention (come the time...come the man). It was even shaky after the end of Domitian and the Flavians. Rome never 'fixed' the succession issues. It always kept reappearing and often the 'wrong' leader came to power.
Your clip concerning debasement, the plagues with the resultant loss of manpower, and buying out the barbarians, while valid, are really issues that exacerbated the ongoing problems of succession that often occurred at the death of an emperor and the quality of the potential 'successor'. This was made worse by the militaristic nature of the Roman Empire where having the biggest and best legions counted in the equation to grab power. Often these people didnt have Rome's best interests at heart. Civil war thus became a norm.
Guess who's going to make the dyed suddenly list very soon.🤣🤣
"Hey, look that Parthian Temple. Let's sack it!!!"
*The line that condemned the Roman Empire*
When the Senate murdered a tribune of the plebs.
RIP in peace Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus. Gone but never forgotton.
I am unconvinced. The 3rd century crisis is a more convincing point in time. It is the first time that large parts of the empire sought independence from central imperial authority. Local elites were willing to support independent regimes. Regardless of all the problems of the mid 2nd century, the romans remained dedicated to and confident in the imperial system. There's no comparison.
Such a great channel. Looking forward to more.
I’d say what laid the ground work for such manpower Crisis would’ve been the Death of The Roman Middle-Class
9:00. I think the problem was that the Germans were built for war. The average Roman just didn’t have that type of Military skill. + these German tribes were small and Gave to much fight for the Romans to quell. The average German Soldier/Warrior was a lot to handle for the italics & Greeks.
1:10
Remus: "Have you decided what our city will be, brother?"
Romulus: "Of course, brother. It shall be that heavenly garden that the Jewish merchants mention in their stories. A unique paradise that will beautify this land rotten with violence. A place where war does not exist. A place where there are no oppressors and oppressed. No one will be more graceful than anyone else. Men shall love each other as brothers and the most beautiful women will make love to each other like lovers. Our city shall prosper with the peace symbolized by trade. And one day... one day it will occupy all corners of the Earth. And that city...that paradise...will be called...Roma"
Remus: "...That's the stupidest name for a city I've ever heard in my life."
Romulus: *Stabs Remus* "SHUT UP!!!"
Things started to go wrong once Rome stopped expanding and began to implode inwards due a multitude of sucession criseses and economic disasters by terrible emperors
Having strengthened barbarian hordes and exposed borders tends to result in more frequent invasions
The Vandals took the handles.
Great video, thank you!
12:03 VERY INTERESTING 12:50, 14:50 Shot your right!
What exactly was this disease? How do we know that it was spread by bathing? Wikipedia says it was either small pox or measles. I suspect it was a form of one of these diseases that we haven't encountered.
Best emperor ever. Aurelian- "I am a joke to you?"
The republic was definitely gone when a son was successor. Rather than searching for the best of the best. The civil wars over who should be emperor left rome open. Also many a great warriors fought in gladiator fights that could have been in the military. Perhaps they could have expanded south. More gold and more recruits.
Could you please do a video reacting to Every Roman Emperor And How They Died, by Sarsath
Duh that's why he was called Lucius Virus.
this is what the US is looking like now.. only its down fall will be 1000 time quicker after only less than a 100 years of dominance..
Sure
Easy come, easy go.
Not really 2 vastly different powers
Cope
@@NikephorosCaesar They still follow the same civilization cycle of rise-reign-fall.
I'd say the problems that destroyed Rome were largely present from the time of the late Republic
More specifically from the time of the military reforms that created a professional army.
From then on Rome/Constantinople never found a way to rein in ambitious/powerful/popular generals, so the government was never stable.
Why were Germanic tribes entering empire so deeply not affected by plaque?
Commodus on the throne
Currency debasement plays a huge role in the rise and fall of “empires”. Hence the decline of American dominance and rise of BRICS etc. History
rhymes/repeats. US hasn’t used real money since August 1971. Only because US dollar is world reserve currency (petrodollar), it’s lasted this long. Things are again changing. Cheers
Excellent as usual.
Those dang beerbellions and pesky microbes.
Some could argue that the fall of Rome was a necessity just as the fall of the Macedonian Empire/Diodachi and Persia.
I would argue that whatever fall should happen, should lead to a further expansion that was had existed before. However, the necessity of a fall should be evident when the fall of a system is self-evident and incapable of reform, which is quite apparent if a Kingdom or an Empire is too large and not structured well enough to manage its periphery. If it takes months for a message to travel, then that is too long. I would argue a month is length of time necessary to determine if something is too big. If it takes more than a month for information to travel, then it is too much. However, who is to say it couldn't exist as an extensive confederation in which enough collaborating systems were regulated and utilized throughout enough of this combined entity that it can still manage even with different governments and heads of state.
You wouldn't be able to begin unifying lands extensive until the Bronze Age Collapse because it led to enough weaken states that one could easily conquer them all if they didn't get too themselves. The best country for this would had been Egypt.
So to begin this empire, we will have Egypt conquer the entire Near East from Elam to Mycenae. We will not include the Gulf lands and Indus Valley, because they didn't develop enough and too detached by water to be of any use other than for trade purposes.
However, Egypt would eventually fall as it depended too much on the ruling house to manage itself and had no other notable institutions other than the priests, which wouldn't have sufficient influence as each land had its own Gods and monotheism had yet been developed or successful to stamp out such practices.
Ramses III was the Pharaoh at that time, Pharaoh meaning head of the Royal House, hinting it was the House that ruled and the Pharoah was simply the head of that house. Ancient Egypt was an oligarchy, who knew. We would need to vamp up each prior dynasty to guarantee Egypt would flourish by the time of the Twentieth Dynasty and to be in a position of Napoleon like strength to crush all lands during the Bronze Age Collapse. We can trace 1550 BCE as the rebuilding of Egypt into a strong power. We also need to make the Hittites just about as strong as it may complicate matters. We need them to weaken very quickly after the Battle of Khadesh so they can easily be subdued by the Sea Peoples, while Egypt gets even stronger so it can easily crush them and then proceed further to conquer the entire Near East, again from Mycenae to Elam.
However, this New Kingdom as this is the phase of Egypt's history will fall at 1069 BCE.
So from 1178 to 1069, Egypt will rule a mighty empire from Kush to Mycenae to Elam and practically all lands in between. Although, this is more correctly between 1155 and 1069 as it would make more sense for Ramses III to spend his entire life after the Second Battle against the Sea Peoples in 1178 to 1155 when he passed away to bring order to the lands of the civilized people known at that time.
Who should take over at 1069? What existed at that time? There was Assyria during its Middle Phase, but also Israel.
Israel emerged as a united kingdom in 1047, which makes a decent size interregnum for the Egyptian Empire. So in other words, the Egyptian Empire -> Israelite Empire from 1047 to 930 BCE. The Neo-Assyrian Empire had emerged at 911 and fell at around 612 BCE.
So we have the Egyptian Empire (1155 to 1047 BCE) -> Israelite Empire (1047 to 911 BCE) -> Mesopotamian Empire (911 to 539 BCE) -> Persian Empire (539 to 330 BCE) -> Macedonian Empire (330 to 30 BCE) -> Roman Empire (30 BCE to 395 CE) -> Byzantine Empire (395 to 800 CE) -> Frankish Empire (800 to 1087 CE) -> Norman Empire (1087 to 1453 CE) -> Turkish Empire (1453 to 1808 CE) -> European Empire (1808 to 1945 CE) -> American Empire (1945 to the Present).
I could had made many smaller durational Empires such as breaking up the Frankish into Carolingian, Ottonian and Salian as well as doing the same for the European Empire between French and German just the same as I could do for the Aramaic being Assyrian and Babylonian, but such empires would lack significance to their impact in history if it is so short and I believe an Empire should last longer than a century if it is to hold a significant impact on human development. The short empire is the Israelite Empire which only needs to initiate the spark of Monotheism. I also extended how long the Egyptian and Israelite Empires would last to fit what happened after with no interregnums.
For each empire a different language is spoken and utilized as the Imperial Standard.
Ancient Egyptian -> Hebrew -> Aramaic -> Farsi -> Greek -> Latin -> Aromanian (Cannot just choose Latin or Greek again) -> Frankish (Flemish Dutch, basically) -> Norman French (This is basically French with a Norman twist to it) -> Ottoman Turkish -> Luxembourgish (Cannot choose French again and Standard German wouldn't really fit starting in France, this language at least exists there and therefore is a possibility) -> English
The American Empire would have conquered all of the Americas, form a union with Oceania (Australia and New Zealand), but also subdued Europe and Asia as well as hold strong influence over all of Africa.
Russia, China and India would be the three big countries independent of American influence, but large or significant chunks of these countries would be independent and would be under direct American influence. This doesn't just consist of Taiwan as an example, but also areas of Northern Russia, the Chinese Coast, Southwest China, Western China, Parts of Coastal India (Including all of Bengal), but even more. Pretty much the world is dominated by America, but five independent entities exist, three large enough to act as antagonists. The two other independent countries which aren't so big either (at least in terms of population) which are chiefly just neutral on this matter are Switzerland and Siberia.
My answer to the question is: the assassination of Stilico.
Can you make a vedio on if rome stayed a republic.
what's that beeping sound?
What's not talked about in this video is the erosion of Classical Latin and the spread of vulgar Latin and Greek loanwords. Together also with the rise of cults like Glykon, Mithras, Isis and Christos, which weakened the strength of the appreciation for traditional Roman gods.
The Roman Empire stopped being Roman and became Byzantine in 610 AD when Emperor Heraclius abandoned the Latin language in favour of Greek
India stopped being India when it abandoned the Magadhi Prakrit language.
@@MiguelDS5547 that’s not relevant
@@MiguelDS5547 There are 2 linguistic groups in India not one
@@anjanpratapsingh727 the same for Rome.
Filthy Heraclius donkey.
But even as early as Emperor Justin 1st before Justinian the Eastern Greek Byzantine Empire had changes.
Summary
0:00: 🏛 이 비디오는 로마 제국의 쇠퇴 초기 징후에 대해 논의하며, 165년의 전염병으로 시작됩니다.
3:58: 🏛 이 비디오는 로마 제국이 2세기에 직면한 초기 침공과 위기에 대해 논의합니다.
7:08: 🏛 비디오는 마르쿠스 아우렐리우스의 통치와 그 시대 로마 제국이 직면한 어려움에 대해 논의합니다.
10:49: 🏛 이 비디오는 로마 황제 마르쿠스 아우렐리우스의 계승과 후계자 콤모두스의 로마 제국에 미치는 영향에 대해 논의합니다.
14:47: 🏛 2세기의 위기는 로마 제국의 근본적인 결함을 드러내었습니다
Recapped using Tammy AI
If only commodus had not killed his father and maximus got to be emperor
you watched too many dovahhaty
@@luanasari5161 what is that
@@blushdog or you watched too many gladiator. also that is a youtuber. you should watch him
In other words, the Romans never learned when enough is enough. If they satisfied with what they have, they will have no such problems with their economy, society and military.
Empires must either expand or face collapse.
@@hemidas This raised the question that I've been thinking a while: Why do we humans like to prolong the inevitable?
This sounds like a certain Austrian man with a funny moustache. Successful gambles and "victory fever" led his nation into disaster.
@@lerneanlion Because we think we can evade it.
@@lerneanlion because only weak men don't fight until the end.
Clearly it was the last hundred years
The rise of the first Antonine marked the apogee of the Roman Empire
The fall of the last Antonine marked the decadence of the Roman Empire
Rome under the Antonines - Easy Mode
The Severans/4th Century - Medium
The Crisis - Very Hard
The 5th Century - Certain Doom
This is interesting, and I believe that the most important development is the start of the coin debasement that would later undermine confidence in the Emperor massively. One can't really discuss this without drawing parallels to today's inflation problem. Debasing the money (today: currency) is a subtle and pervasive way to steal from every citizen. It causes a hard to identify loss of confidence in the system (empire), and sows the seeds for major trouble.
Three main causes of debasement:
- The loss of active gold/silver mines.
- The need to pay upkeep for large armies
- The bribes (ehm, treaty sums) to the barbarians
Trade deficit, budget deficit and paying off your enemies will lead to a massive hollowing out of imperial power.
Compare that to Eastern Rome: They managed to keep their money sound for many centuries, wich parallels keeping the society sound. Sound money is good for society.
Commodus: "I want to be a gladiator!!!"
Romans: "Well, guess things will get better over time"
*A death of Commodus, an infamous Severan Dynasty, 50 years of crisis, a Tetrarchy, a Christianization of the Empire, various civil wars, a permanent division, three sacks of Rome and countless barbarian invasions later*
Romans: 🖕
Pandemic, economic and military problems confronted a multi cultural, diverse society. Homogeneous societies can deal with such problems better. Diversity is not a virtue.
Evidence to support your claim?!!!
@@ErinWinslow evidence lies in history. Diverse and multi cultural societies offer more probs and are less resilient than homogeneous ones. Thats not at all a secret.
LOL? But what exactly were they different with? Are they not all part of the same species?))) As for the romans, believe it or not but they were multicultural since the founding of rome. Ever heard of Sabines? Etruscans?
@@cheekybreeky6925 of course are they part of the same species. But not part of the same culture, social imprints and collective experiences.
Rome became less tolerant in its latter years. It started off polytheistic absorbing the gods of conquered cultures into its pantheon. In 312 with Constantine, and 381 with Theodosius all religions other than Christianity were banned. The religious intolerance fuelled unrest throughout the mostly pagan empire and accellerated Rome's collapse.
So it was a case of build in wekneses on the way the Empire worked that seeds is desmise.
Rome was triing to rule half of Europe, North Africa and the Levante whit the same tools and institutions it ruled central Italy.
The Senatus Romanus continue to be a colection of the richest families of the city of Rome. The provinces had no representation on the central goverment.
Well the Brits can't even stop thousands of young men of fighting age coming over the English Channel on rubber dinghies, so let's not be too hard on the 2nd century Romans, lol.
Deliberate genocidal eradication of the most dedicated psychopaths was necessary but the means were lacking. The savage tribes scorned Roman weakness, and were determined to exterminate as much of Roman civilization as possible... how many hundreds of thousands of mutilated skeletons have been revealed so far in the frontier regions?
It's problematic to call the Eastern Roman Empire the last Roman state. Ethnically it was Greek. The ethnically and locally Roman state after the 8th century were the Papal States, ruled to different extend throughout history by the Roman bishop, the Pontifex Maximus. This state spoke a language, that evolved from Latin and was absorbed into the Italian state, which became partly Roman then, in 1870.
They were NOT roman
At last they fall! The Empire/Slaveholders. Barbarians is free people! Love the vid though!
I disagree - it started after Rome's first successful conquest, c 500 BCE. I don't know what that was, but that's not important. What IS important is that Rome built its growth on conquest, not commerce. And, much like a shark that has to swim in order to not drown, Rome HAD to continue to conquer in order to supply itself with income/wealth. As it conquered more territory & population, it had to go deeper and deeper. The cost of conquest grew, much as a circle's area grows exponentially as the radius expands. Initially highly profitable, as Rome had to cover and maintain its expansion, the profitability started to decline until it became marginal, then negative. But, as a conquering nation, it could never retrench because everyone you've conquered in the past - that's still alive - is ready to join forces with its worst neighbors to destroy Rome.
Epidemics/pandemics are major events, but I'm sure the barbarians faced similar "events" although densely populated cities like Rome got hit harder. That rather than bathing culture which removed disease bearing dirt and grime. An open and clean facility is very unlikely to have contributed significantly to the spread of the plague, the primary vector being vermin, fleas, rabid animals, etc. in tenements.
I know if you believe what I thinking but it was Roman Empire's destiny to decline. I mean the reconquest could happen under Justinian but suddenly a plague emerge. I believe there was a higher being(Divine) intervention the Rome should and must have to fall.
Zindebad Shapur
The thing is, they didn't wear masks in public places, which ultimately brought their downfall.
LOL Sarcasm?
When Germans entered the military en masse
They will write about America’s downfall just like this.
In the 4th century AD, Rome still may have accounted for 20 percent of the world population and 30 percent of world GDP. Rome had the structural strength of a national state, access to advanced technology and insane logistics. They could move a legion from Scotland to Syria within 3 months and equip and supply 100.000 men in the field.
To suggest that this behemoth could fall to some barbarian warbands appears outright ludicrous. And yet it happened. For some reasons, Rome proved unable to mobilise its resources.
They mobilised their resources alright. Only they mobilised against themselves, every time an emperor died. Usurpers would pull garrisons from the border defences to march on Rome and leave the doors wide open for invaders. I wonder if the romans lost more men to civil war than external threats..
@@jonwarland272 I don't buy the civil war theory. Rome had been waging civil wars since the late republic. On the one hand, civil wars weakened the empire, but on the other hand they were the hard times that made great leaders. This changed in the 5th century. Neither Honorius nor Valentinian III. would have ruled longer than one day without the protection from Constantinople.
ua-cam.com/video/3YFsuR-5934/v-deo.html this should not be that accurate ....but in the case of Rome it somehow is ....
I blame the economy.
Commodus wasn't bad, this is just christian Propaganda from Ridley Scotts Gladiator movie. Read: "John S. McHugh: The Emperor Commodus. God and Gladiator"
The Gothic Problem was supposed to be solved by Stilicho until an Idiot Emperor of the East told him to stay away from my property.
Second
First
By God/ Jesus well Empire's rise and fall and when he decrees an Empire to follow there is no stopping it just ask the Babylonians the Persians and the Greeks with Alexander's Empire and finally Rome which were all prophesied to fall in the Bible in the Book of Daniel read it
You're rehashing the same topics. There's other things to talk about... like the economy, the literature, the politics, the geography, etc... yet all you can seem to talk about is the fall.... the fall.... the fall ..... the fall..