Personally, when I’m talking about Caesar, I tend to call him “the first” emperor. I do this because most people know of the Empire not the republic. I do still make sure people know he was not a real emperor, but still call him the first. He might as well be considered one after the civil war. I also tend to talk about Sulla in a similar matter.
Yup. Also what got him killed was not that he made himself dictator .. its that he made himself dictator for life. King. He signed his own death warrant with that move.
@@cgavin1 I think what really did JC in was trying to make himself a literal king. Which spooked the shit out of the senators. He was already dictator for life. They allowed him to bring in that giant-ass golden chair into the senate floor. But when rumors flew that he wanted to be called "Rex"? The senators brought out the knives and played their cards. Augustus was definitely smarter about the whole thing. Until he came, "Emperor/Imperator" just meant "Victorious Commander" or "Dear Leader". In theory, it was supposed to be a comparatively humbler title, and in the context of the principate should come across to most Romans as basically calling yourself "Super President". But, Augustus was awesome. He was king and undisputed master of Rome without ever needing to call himself that. So moving forward, as more and more of his successors adopted his names and styles, instead of being a low-kew title, Emperor came to mean the rank above a lowly king. A more "august" title.
I think Emperor 0 would be a better term because he had all the powers of an Emperor but no the name. If I am not mistaken others took his name and Kaiser became synonymous with Emperor
About your last misconception - Its not entirely true that we were left with white statues because the colours faded. People have been cleaning off the paint for a long time now. The Temple of Hephaestus in Athens had its paint removed less then a century ago, for example. The Elgin Marbles were "cleaned" in the 1930s, and various people have cleaned off remnants of Persepolis throughout the last century. While a lot of paint will have faded, a lot was also removed by people.
Another common misconception about ancient rome is basically everything we say about Gladiators. First and most often misunderstood: they rarely killed each other. Those guys were trained athletes which needed extremely much education to fight what costed on the other hand a tone of money. So imagine you had a Gladiator, invested your whole savings in him and he dies in his first battle. They can be at best be compared to WWE fighters. They also just put on an act. Second: Gladiators weren't those loved and famous sportsmen. They were slaves. Somebody owned them and if they were lucky they got there freedom (but they were still at the lower end of roman society as freed slaves). There still are some more but I'm already getting bored of typing.
Marcus Aurelius was the last great emperor I'm just gonna say this because many friends I have don't know of a single emperor after Marcus Aurelius (except Constantine)
Marcus was great, but certainly not the last one. Constantine, Heraclius, Severus, Valentinian, Basil II, Justinian I Theodosius I, Anastasius I, Nicephorus II, Michael III, John II etc. are surely up on that list
Well, the statement that "Marcus Aurelius was the last great emperor" is not entirely untrue. It just kind of depends on the personal definition of the word "great". The fact that the sources for the 3rd century (and after) are very problematic also doesn't really help. You have mythological characters like Constantine, you have a computer game character Aurelian. And you have Diocletian - quite possibly the only person who can be considered "great" and not merely "good".
1. Augustus was also not Emperor. 2. Nero may not have burned down Rome; but he probably ordered it. Men were captured in the act of lighting the great fire. They claimed to be under orders. But no record survives of who ordered the fire.
Love your videos, Spectrum. Is there any chance you could talk more about the theory that Rome never fell? I’ve studied Rome and Latin since I was a child, and it’s a tantalising theory, though one I’ve honestly more seen substantiated (fasces on American and English buildings, the American appropriation of the aquila, the adoption of the Imperialist mindset by the British and subsequently Americans, etc.) than heard substantiated with considerable facts or evidence in a concrete way. Most people I’ve heard repeat this idea have really done so more as an intellectual exercise than as an honest assessment, so I’d love to see what you can find or have come across on the subject.
I am thinking of making a video on the fall of Rome, specifically where I try to tackle the many, many proposed dates it "fell", and should I do it, the possibility of going deeper on the "theory" (it is, in my personal opinion, more of a belief than a theory, to tell you the truth) that Rome never fell is actually pretty high. As my experience with UA-cam taught me, however: I'm not making any promises.
@@spectrum1140 Well I will most certainly be watching if you do. You make great stuff and I’m very interested to hear your thoughts on the Fall. Keep up the good work brother!
I've come to think of ancient Rome being mostly akin to a modern Indian city - colorful, chaotic, dangerous, with daily religious expressions in every little corner.
TBH if a horse was consul that might've meant the Republic would've lasted longer because it'd be more capable and willing to address major issues facing the Plebeian class than the Senatorial class was in reality
@@feynstein1004 not really that long as he was the third emperor after augustus and tiberius but still about 50 years after the republic fell and definitely too late to change anything
You forgot the not all Romans wore red all the time. Edit* Not all Roman legions wore red, it's hypothesized that each legion had a different color based on it's region. We have two Roman shields in the archeological record both being red, that's why red is overstated in importance in media.
red was cheapest color.. they would not wear it commonly... soldiers sometimes wear it, because it was also color of Mars, god of war... but ordinary romans would not dye their dress red..
Aren't there periods when we don't know who was consul, though? I'm pretty sure there are several periods in which the actual consuls of the year are not documented.
Well, the truth is that that it's not wrong when you hear at the first time. From Cesar, comes Kaiser, and Kaiser, was a german title meaning Emperor. So, yes, only the word, it's true. But I'm agree that Julius Cesar wasn't an emperor in all means (maybe part of this misdconception was the "12 caesars" from Suetonius, that he added Julius Cesar as the 1rst chapter). He concentrated a lot of power (like Sila and Mario did 50 years ago than him), but from that to being an authocratic men with all the power that a king have.....
If I'm not mistaken, I've read some articles saying that Nero might not have been as absolutely horrendously God awful as he is often portrayed as. It's debated but still interesting I think
He wasn’t as bad as most people think! He was, distinctly unpopular, especially among Christians. I’m not saying he was good or even mediocre, he just wasn’t completely terrible.
Mike Duncan on the History of Rome podcast put it in terms of him being an influenceable inexperienced teenager who did fairly well as long as he was influenced by good, competent men, but when they were gone he was doomed.
I'm not sure it is even "debated" in modern times. Almost any modern historian sees Nero as a victim of character assassination. The case of Nero is very complicated. He was a problematic emperor. But, it seems, very popular among the general population.
You left out a misconception about Rome (the city) and it is that it is always depicted as clean when in fact the streets were litter with horse manure and and human waste because it was common for people who live in multi-story buildings to empty their chamber pots by dumping the content out the window. This was such a problem that the Senate actually passed a law to forbid it. Also, because the only means of cooking is by fire, Rome was more often than not covered by smoke like L.A. was once known for its smog.
About the fall of Roman Empire there is a particular reason to believe that it fell only in 1453, that is the delivery of imperial insigna by Odoacer to Zeno when Romulus Augustus was deposed. So, after the fall of Western Roman Empire, Zeno was recognized as the sole roman emperor, while Odoacer became a patrician and king of the Kingdom of Italy.
I am not sure how interested you are, but it would be amazing if you could do some videos about medieval Portugal, if you want to branch out into different subjects. Virtually nothing is known about medieval Portugal by Anglophones, especially how their society worked.
Common misconception: Gallienus was a lazy, ineffectual emperor. The truth: He was a militarily active, hard working reformer who sowed the seeds for Rome's recovery from the 3rd Century Crisis (for which his successors would take all the credit).
The Historia Augusta thing caused Gallienus recarinated to Majorian 153 years later to save the empire once again, hoping somebody would recognize him, and changed their minds towards Gallienus, now in the form of Majorian......
I disagree. Some historians argue that Caligula wasn’t always being crazy, but rather had a crazy sense of humor. That he and Nero loved to prank the senate by showing their power by being able to do ridiculous feats like naming a horse consul.
The thing is, as the video explains, the main source of that fact is literature, specifically literature with high tones of satire, which you can't take letter by letter. You have to interpret it in the context of its own conventions.
Caligula despised the senate and use to humiliate them in order to humble them, he wasn't crazy at all he was actually an enlightened person, his enemys sladered him
@@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443 Caligula wasn't necessarily crazy in the sense of being delusional. He was, however, unusually cruel and blasphemous. THere was something clearly 'not right' about Caligula
1:22 caesar was an emperor (he was dictator, but never actually became emperor) 3:25 caligula made his horse a consul (he only planned to) 4:52 nero burned down rome (he didn't) 7:09 one specific thing destroyed rome (it was a gradual culmination of multiple things) 8:52 romans always wore togas (they wore other stuff) 9:52 statues were white (they were often painted)
10:25 "this makes the city seem tacky to me". This is due to first impression Bias, as we initially think and see roman sculptures and cities as clear white and makes us feel thats the right way. Similar to how u see your face in a mirror to what your face actually looks like (left and right inverted)
Christianity had nothing to do with the fall of the Western Roman Empire. As the Eastern side showed, Romans were able to carry the cross and the sword quite effectively.
I think it was harder on the West, because paganism was much more common there than in the East, given how Rome was rooted with pagan themes, especially when Constantinople became the capital.
If you're curious specifically about the fall of the western Roman empire, I recommend Patrick Wyman's "Fall of Rome" podcast. It was the subject of his PhD dissertation and he goes past 476 to the point where the West was probably incapable of rising again
You forgot probably the biggest and most common one (so big you even partially committed it in this video): That the Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D/That anything noteworthy happened in 476, which makes it an important date (it wasn't).
I think Odoacer coming to power makes it an important date, even if you don't think HE was anything special and that the Empire continued and evolved that's still pretty major. Unless this is a joke about the Empire never falling because it's alive in our hearts, in which case I'm sorry for being an "ackshually" tier buzzkill.
@@legateelizabeth But Odoacer coming to power really wasn't a big deal at all. Because he did the exact same thing Ricimer, Gundobad and Orestes had been doing in the west for decades at this point. Odoacer also only ruled for a little over a decade, so he didn't leave much of an impact. The only thing Odoacer did that was different was that he got rid of the Western Emperor and just directly made himself subservient to the Eastern Empire. All the Western Emperors since the 460's had been puppets anyway, and they had even gone a few years without a Western Emperor already, so this wasn't a first. But this didn't happen until 480. Literally all that happened in 476 was that Odoacer deposed one puppet Emperor that nobody recognized and made himself subservient to another powerless Emperor (Julius Nepos) that was largely recognized.
I think a good way to view the toga is to think of them in the late republican and early imperial period, as being something like modern business suits.
Another misconceptions -the byzantines thought that they are different from the romans - Constantine christianised Rome -everyone in the empire spoke latin and the same kind of latin / classical latin and the latin of the catholic church are the same thing
About the first point: Yes, they considered themselves Romans but they are different kind of Roman (Eastern Roman). The Empire was initially quite diverse (Armenians, Syrians, Judeans, Thraco-Romans,Copts and Greeks). These were the main eastern Roman populations with Greek as the lingua franca (Greek East). But after the Arabic invasions in the 600's, only the Greek-speaking parts remained (Greece and Asia Minor), by that point they were the remaining population under Roman control, so they identified as Romans. It is possible that this identification goes back at least to 380 when Theodosius I made xtianity the state religion. If you referred to yourself as a Hellene or a Greek in East Rome, they would have considered you a pagan.
@@atzuras "Kaiser" comes from the Latin "Caesar", the title called after (Julius?), meaning "emperor". "Tsar" is an eastern bastardisation of the title.
Agreed that Christianity was a minor factor and barbarians were a major factor in the fall of the western Roman Empire, but the most important one by far were civil wars. It’s really as easy as that
If you'd know nothing about rome and started reading it's history from start to finish, you'd think the "fall of rome" would just be another setback rome would bounce back from, stronger..
Another misconception about Caligula would be his alleged lust to his sister. The only record that slightly indicate it is that he shows a huge grief when her sister passed away.
Not just "a sister", but THREE SISTERS. He slept with his THREE sisters. And that's why he put them on his coins. This is the reason why his mother named him "Caligula" (which means "mad and licentious" in Latin). If you open his passport it says "Caligula Biggus Dickus Incitatus". That's how bad he was.
@@optimusminimus your claims are baseless, Caligula meant little (soldier) boots. Also, it was common for royal family members to appear on coins. There is no credible source stating that Caligula was in S£xual relationship with his sisters.
@@monsieur1936 No, I saw it on Netflix, he clearly slept with them since they were visually attractive. Netflix is a credible source. And you don't simply put random people on coins: only the people you slept with. Especially if you're evil and licentious. So licentious that people even start calling you "Caligula". Imagine someone will start calling you a "Caligula". Trust me, they will do it not because of your shoes, but because of licentiousness.
Although there were in did a lot of minor reasons why the Roman Empire fell, There is one major reason that eventually led to its demise and all other minor problems, upon further inspection, can be found stemming from it. So I don't think I agree with that one.
@@Thelaretus diocltions Tetracky or however it's written had littel to do With it. If it wasen't for his micromanagment the empire qould have fallen earlier than it did. Rome Fell because the Romans stopped fighting for themself and deviated from their old Traditions
English Danish Viking King Canute had sycophant courtiers take him to the seaside where he ordered the tide to go back, which didn't. He, like Caligula, was mocking his sycophant's.
I disagree with the misconception about statues. I have a picture of myself next to a statue of Caligula that was unearthed in Pompeii. The statue shows no signs of paint. Much of the coloring, even on the walls with frescos, stayed intact.
I think Nero playing the violin whilst rome was burning was a good piece of misinformation to spread. After all the crazy stuff he did (killing wives) it's a good way to make him look bad.
Ive never commented on a UA-cam video, but I want to now to also recommend The History Of Rome by Mike Duncan. Ive been sleeping to it for 5 years now.
Great little video! Yeah, people who think "Julius might as well have been first emperor" probably are a little uninformed about dictatorship in Rome (and how Julius abused that provision), and Augustus' Constitutional Settlements, which were the building blocks for the Principate and Empire. As for the Fall of Rome: historians quite properly renamed the Eastern part of the formerly great Mediterranean polity to the rather Romantic name of Byzantium. From one standpoint, does it matter, anyway? Civilizations, like the people who make them, eventually die.
The planning of his horse becoming a consul was meant as an insult to the senate. The senate and caligula hating each other is why our history of caligula is very negative, historiographically speaking.
The biggest misconception of Rome is about a man named Bigus Dickus. Unfortunately too many folk don't know of his tale
A tragedy
Don't forget his friend Silius Soddus.
And his wife Incontinentia Buttocks
A name not to be laughed at!
Only a proud woOman would know
I'm glad i found this channel, i needed a biased introduction to roman history after dovahhatty's clearly unbiased history
Yeah, dovahhattys channel is fun but not great if you actually want to learn the nitty-gritty factual details
Historia Civilis is another good channel for learning about Rome especially the late republic!
@@lakedaemon that one is great.. but he's like not doing much this year
@@atzuras i mean mostly for the fact of historical roman stuff but yeah not much :(
@@lakedaemon I think he has something brewing up
Lol your video just made me realise that the name for the old software suite "Nero Burning ROM" was not randomly chosen.
Yooooo lmao someone had a sense of humour back in the 90s
These were terrible channel suggestions.. since I watch them all anyways. Great video as always!
Personally, when I’m talking about Caesar, I tend to call him “the first” emperor. I do this because most people know of the Empire not the republic. I do still make sure people know he was not a real emperor, but still call him the first. He might as well be considered one after the civil war. I also tend to talk about Sulla in a similar matter.
Still as good as always. Love this channel and can’t wait for more.
Yup. Also what got him killed was not that he made himself dictator .. its that he made himself dictator for life. King. He signed his own death warrant with that move.
@@cgavin1 I think what really did JC in was trying to make himself a literal king. Which spooked the shit out of the senators. He was already dictator for life. They allowed him to bring in that giant-ass golden chair into the senate floor. But when rumors flew that he wanted to be called "Rex"? The senators brought out the knives and played their cards.
Augustus was definitely smarter about the whole thing. Until he came, "Emperor/Imperator" just meant "Victorious Commander" or "Dear Leader". In theory, it was supposed to be a comparatively humbler title, and in the context of the principate should come across to most Romans as basically calling yourself "Super President". But, Augustus was awesome. He was king and undisputed master of Rome without ever needing to call himself that. So moving forward, as more and more of his successors adopted his names and styles, instead of being a low-kew title, Emperor came to mean the rank above a lowly king. A more "august" title.
I think Emperor 0 would be a better term because he had all the powers of an Emperor but no the name.
If I am not mistaken others took his name and Kaiser became synonymous with Emperor
@@Borderose ua-cam.com/video/g8SaB7O2JRM/v-deo.html
How things change.. how they stay the same hehe.
That every soldier used lorica segmentatas
The history of Rome is the best podcast to ever exist.
I thought for a long time during my younger years Caesar was an emperor and i think i got that from reading Asterix & Obelix
The greatest misconception is that all emperors were assassinated
_Dies of gout on some shithole island sounds_
The greatest misconception is that D. Pedro II isn't the best emperor in human history.
@@Bronze_Age_Sea_Person we are in agreement
I'm impressed with the content here.
Caligula: Trolololololololololo
Senate kids: REEEEEEEE HE IS A MONSTER
Glad I came across this channel. Nice video.
One thing we can be certain of: the horse consul would have been of the equestrial class (equites)
,,, cool,, instructive video! ...
Hey dude, great video. Hope you do one on the idea of "rome never falling"
bro please do more byzantine history like heraclius
4:15 that helmet made me dizzy
About your last misconception - Its not entirely true that we were left with white statues because the colours faded. People have been cleaning off the paint for a long time now. The Temple of Hephaestus in Athens had its paint removed less then a century ago, for example. The Elgin Marbles were "cleaned" in the 1930s, and various people have cleaned off remnants of Persepolis throughout the last century.
While a lot of paint will have faded, a lot was also removed by people.
Another common misconception about ancient rome is basically everything we say about Gladiators. First and most often misunderstood: they rarely killed each other. Those guys were trained athletes which needed extremely much education to fight what costed on the other hand a tone of money. So imagine you had a Gladiator, invested your whole savings in him and he dies in his first battle. They can be at best be compared to WWE fighters. They also just put on an act. Second: Gladiators weren't those loved and famous sportsmen. They were slaves. Somebody owned them and if they were lucky they got there freedom (but they were still at the lower end of roman society as freed slaves). There still are some more but I'm already getting bored of typing.
Is 12 cesars a good book to learn roman history?
Ancient roman politics would have made our political spin look like a slow turn, so you need to take things with a pinch of salt in many cases
Kings and Generals is amazing for ancient history in general.
Meh
Marcus Aurelius was the last great emperor
I'm just gonna say this because many friends I have don't know of a single emperor after Marcus Aurelius (except Constantine)
Marcus was great, but certainly not the last one. Constantine, Heraclius, Severus, Valentinian, Basil II, Justinian I Theodosius I, Anastasius I, Nicephorus II, Michael III, John II etc. are surely up on that list
You forget Aurelian
Well, the statement that "Marcus Aurelius was the last great emperor" is not entirely untrue. It just kind of depends on the personal definition of the word "great". The fact that the sources for the 3rd century (and after) are very problematic also doesn't really help. You have mythological characters like Constantine, you have a computer game character Aurelian. And you have Diocletian - quite possibly the only person who can be considered "great" and not merely "good".
3:26 So my history teacher lied to me...
4:48 Nero was the original neck beard
Another one: Rome was built in a day
1. Augustus was also not Emperor.
2. Nero may not have burned down Rome; but he probably ordered it. Men were captured in the act of lighting the great fire. They claimed to be under orders. But no record survives of who ordered the fire.
Spectrum
Love your videos, Spectrum. Is there any chance you could talk more about the theory that Rome never fell? I’ve studied Rome and Latin since I was a child, and it’s a tantalising theory, though one I’ve honestly more seen substantiated (fasces on American and English buildings, the American appropriation of the aquila, the adoption of the Imperialist mindset by the British and subsequently Americans, etc.) than heard substantiated with considerable facts or evidence in a concrete way. Most people I’ve heard repeat this idea have really done so more as an intellectual exercise than as an honest assessment, so I’d love to see what you can find or have come across on the subject.
I am thinking of making a video on the fall of Rome, specifically where I try to tackle the many, many proposed dates it "fell", and should I do it, the possibility of going deeper on the "theory" (it is, in my personal opinion, more of a belief than a theory, to tell you the truth) that Rome never fell is actually pretty high. As my experience with UA-cam taught me, however: I'm not making any promises.
@@spectrum1140 Well I will most certainly be watching if you do. You make great stuff and I’m very interested to hear your thoughts on the Fall. Keep up the good work brother!
I've come to think of ancient Rome being mostly akin to a modern Indian city - colorful, chaotic, dangerous, with daily religious expressions in every little corner.
WTF
Russians and Rome
Common Misconceptions: The germanic conquest of rome was "bad"
It’s not a misconception if it’s true
@@feastguy101 Europe ruled by italiens? god no, eww
I actually find the colorfull statues ugly and creepy, my head canon is they were always white
The Roman Empire fell in 1922.
TBH if a horse was consul that might've meant the Republic would've lasted longer because it'd be more capable and willing to address major issues facing the Plebeian class than the Senatorial class was in reality
He'd be an equestrian! :>
@@kiwikiwi1779 hehehe
Soycialists everywhere
By the time of Caligula's reign, the Republic was long dead. The horse wouldn't have made any difference.
@@feynstein1004 not really that long as he was the third emperor after augustus and tiberius but still about 50 years after the republic fell and definitely too late to change anything
There once was a dream... A dream... Called... Rome.
Plot twist: Montenegro defeats rome in battle and takes over the world, after this they defeat the trans galactic federation and unite the Universe
@@rbvfeehfbudenrj no
thete once was a dream an American dream
Rome wasn’t built in a day, Rome was a dream and it was built in one night.
@@rbvfeehfbudenrj they failed en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Macedonian_War
You forgot the not all Romans wore red all the time.
Edit* Not all Roman legions wore red, it's hypothesized that each legion had a different color based on it's region. We have two Roman shields in the archeological record both being red, that's why red is overstated in importance in media.
Still a great video tho
lies, all romans wore red XDDDD
red was cheapest color.. they would not wear it commonly... soldiers sometimes wear it, because it was also color of Mars, god of war... but ordinary romans would not dye their dress red..
WHAAAAAAAAT???!!!
Common misconception: The Praetorian Guardsmen weren't the most horrific monsters in all of human history.
The Praetorian Guard get it far too good in the mainstream eye, even their classification of “elite” is highly doubtful.
There is even a vpn called Praetorian. I wonder if it holds up to its name
They're just a garrison stasioned in rome.
What they did to Pertinax still pretty cunty.
@@lukasvoorhis6964 sells your data to ONLY the highest bidder, then sells their data to Only the highest bidder, then...
I wonder how torturous an all consuls video would be.
Imagine doing a list ranking every one piece chapter
@@williambarker8790 lol, that would be rough af. especially when it became an honorific and they were appointing them dozens of times a year.
Aren't there periods when we don't know who was consul, though? I'm pretty sure there are several periods in which the actual consuls of the year are not documented.
@@hanspetrich6520 yeah, probably.
@@hanspetrich6520 oddly enough u use the consuls to know what year it was
Remember, Rome wasn't destroyed in one day.
I refuse to accept you anti consul horse propaganda, that horse was a good boy and he was consul in my heart.
When I talk to people about Julius Cesar everyone assumes he was an emperor, because all emperors were essentially called Cesar.
He was an emperor, he just isnt considered one for some reason
@@laughsatchungus1461 because he wasn’t an emperor, he was a dictator. Augustus is the one who helped formed the empire
Well, the truth is that that it's not wrong when you hear at the first time.
From Cesar, comes Kaiser, and Kaiser, was a german title meaning Emperor. So, yes, only the word, it's true. But I'm agree that Julius Cesar wasn't an emperor in all means (maybe part of this misdconception was the "12 caesars" from Suetonius, that he added Julius Cesar as the 1rst chapter). He concentrated a lot of power (like Sila and Mario did 50 years ago than him), but from that to being an authocratic men with all the power that a king have.....
@@Frendlu Marius lost the civil war.
If I'm not mistaken, I've read some articles saying that Nero might not have been as absolutely horrendously God awful as he is often portrayed as. It's debated but still interesting I think
He wasn’t as bad as most people think! He was, distinctly unpopular, especially among Christians. I’m not saying he was good or even mediocre, he just wasn’t completely terrible.
And his wife death might've been due to birth complication.
He was an OK administrator, he was LOVED by the lower classes and hated by the patricians because he didnt want to play ball with them.
Mike Duncan on the History of Rome podcast put it in terms of him being an influenceable inexperienced teenager who did fairly well as long as he was influenced by good, competent men, but when they were gone he was doomed.
I'm not sure it is even "debated" in modern times. Almost any modern historian sees Nero as a victim of character assassination. The case of Nero is very complicated. He was a problematic emperor. But, it seems, very popular among the general population.
You left out a misconception about Rome (the city) and it is that it is always depicted as clean when in fact the streets were litter with horse manure and and human waste because it was common for people who live in multi-story buildings to empty their chamber pots by dumping the content out the window. This was such a problem that the Senate actually passed a law to forbid it. Also, because the only means of cooking is by fire, Rome was more often than not covered by smoke like L.A. was once known for its smog.
About the fall of Roman Empire there is a particular reason to believe that it fell only in 1453, that is the delivery of imperial insigna by Odoacer to Zeno when Romulus Augustus was deposed. So, after the fall of Western Roman Empire, Zeno was recognized as the sole roman emperor, while Odoacer became a patrician and king of the Kingdom of Italy.
I am not sure how interested you are, but it would be amazing if you could do some videos about medieval Portugal, if you want to branch out into different subjects. Virtually nothing is known about medieval Portugal by Anglophones, especially how their society worked.
Common misconception: Gallienus was a lazy, ineffectual emperor.
The truth: He was a militarily active, hard working reformer who sowed the seeds for Rome's recovery from the 3rd Century Crisis (for which his successors would take all the credit).
The Historia Augusta thing caused Gallienus recarinated to Majorian 153 years later to save the empire once again, hoping somebody would recognize him, and changed their minds towards Gallienus, now in the form of Majorian......
Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant
I think Gallienus isn’t probably known enough to make anything about him to be considered a misconception
Last time I was this early Aeneas was just showing up from Troy.
"The vast majority of emperors were gay or bisexual!"
_Can confirm. My Julia was the only one who I had eyes for._
I disagree. Some historians argue that Caligula wasn’t always being crazy, but rather had a crazy sense of humor. That he and Nero loved to prank the senate by showing their power by being able to do ridiculous feats like naming a horse consul.
The thing is, as the video explains, the main source of that fact is literature, specifically literature with high tones of satire, which you can't take letter by letter. You have to interpret it in the context of its own conventions.
All they did was a little trolling
Caligula despised the senate and use to humiliate them in order to humble them, he wasn't crazy at all he was actually an enlightened person, his enemys sladered him
@@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443 do you have the classic source of that? Please? Would be useful!
@@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443 Caligula wasn't necessarily crazy in the sense of being delusional. He was, however, unusually cruel and blasphemous. THere was something clearly 'not right' about Caligula
1:22 caesar was an emperor (he was dictator, but never actually became emperor)
3:25 caligula made his horse a consul (he only planned to)
4:52 nero burned down rome (he didn't)
7:09 one specific thing destroyed rome (it was a gradual culmination of multiple things)
8:52 romans always wore togas (they wore other stuff)
9:52 statues were white (they were often painted)
the only consistent part of ancient roman clothing habits is that they hated pants (until the late imperial period maybe)
@@dane1382 anti-gaulish sentiment 😂
I mean Caesar was every emperor for a while there. You gotta be more specific.
@@DIEGhostfish this is just a list for the video
10:25 "this makes the city seem tacky to me". This is due to first impression Bias, as we initially think and see roman sculptures and cities as clear white and makes us feel thats the right way. Similar to how u see your face in a mirror to what your face actually looks like (left and right inverted)
“It makes the city look kind of tacky to me” I’m sure if you could have seen it first hand you wouldn’t feel that way
Christianity had nothing to do with the fall of the Western Roman Empire. As the Eastern side showed, Romans were able to carry the cross and the sword quite effectively.
I think it was harder on the West, because paganism was much more common there than in the East, given how Rome was rooted with pagan themes, especially when Constantinople became the capital.
If you're curious specifically about the fall of the western Roman empire, I recommend Patrick Wyman's "Fall of Rome" podcast. It was the subject of his PhD dissertation and he goes past 476 to the point where the West was probably incapable of rising again
You forgot probably the biggest and most common one (so big you even partially committed it in this video):
That the Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D/That anything noteworthy happened in 476, which makes it an important date (it wasn't).
I think Odoacer coming to power makes it an important date, even if you don't think HE was anything special and that the Empire continued and evolved that's still pretty major.
Unless this is a joke about the Empire never falling because it's alive in our hearts, in which case I'm sorry for being an "ackshually" tier buzzkill.
@@legateelizabeth
But Odoacer coming to power really wasn't a big deal at all. Because he did the exact same thing Ricimer, Gundobad and Orestes had been doing in the west for decades at this point. Odoacer also only ruled for a little over a decade, so he didn't leave much of an impact.
The only thing Odoacer did that was different was that he got rid of the Western Emperor and just directly made himself subservient to the Eastern Empire. All the Western Emperors since the 460's had been puppets anyway, and they had even gone a few years without a Western Emperor already, so this wasn't a first.
But this didn't happen until 480. Literally all that happened in 476 was that Odoacer deposed one puppet Emperor that nobody recognized and made himself subservient to another powerless Emperor (Julius Nepos) that was largely recognized.
Love the Mike Duncan, Thominus Maximus and K&G recommendations
I think a good way to view the toga is to think of them in the late republican and early imperial period, as being something like modern business suits.
Another misconceptions
-the byzantines thought that they are different from the romans
- Constantine christianised Rome
-everyone in the empire spoke latin and the same kind of latin / classical latin and the latin of the catholic church are the same thing
About the first point: Yes, they considered themselves Romans but they are different kind of Roman (Eastern Roman). The Empire was initially quite diverse (Armenians, Syrians, Judeans, Thraco-Romans,Copts and Greeks). These were the main eastern Roman populations with Greek as the lingua franca (Greek East). But after the Arabic invasions in the 600's, only the Greek-speaking parts remained (Greece and Asia Minor), by that point they were the remaining population under Roman control, so they identified as Romans. It is possible that this identification goes back at least to 380 when Theodosius I made xtianity the state religion. If you referred to yourself as a Hellene or a Greek in East Rome, they would have considered you a pagan.
I personally think Christianity sustained the Roman Empire longer. Not jus5 in the west but in the east as well.
Actually in the book I Claudius, Caligula made his horse a senator, not a consul. The horse's name was Incitatus
This might be weird, but is this a re-upload? I'm getting massive deja-vu.
The History of Rome podcast is terrible. Just read a fucking book.
Do you have any plans to do a ranking of the British monarchs? Would love to see a video on that!
@Spectrum where is the EU Countries Ranking video? You can't hide it forever
Mike Duncan's Storm before the storm is a great read too!
Love you referencing dominus maxiumus, love romaboo youtube
Augustus claimed he was the "princeps" but after his death the title changed to "augustus"
Well caesar could be read as kaiser or kaisar which literaly means emperor in some langguage
Great channel, hope it blows up even more
"Julius Caesar was an emperor"
He wasn't even a king.
so that's why many emperors called themselves "Kaiser" or "Tsar"
@@atzuras "Kaiser" comes from the Latin "Caesar", the title called after (Julius?), meaning "emperor". "Tsar" is an eastern bastardisation of the title.
@@atzuras Also, Kaiser is the Germanization of Caeser
Liking the new editing! If the quality of your videos keep improving like this, you’ll grow even bigger in no time.
Agreed that Christianity was a minor factor and barbarians were a major factor in the fall of the western Roman Empire, but the most important one by far were civil wars. It’s really as easy as that
Imperator in latin means commander. Littuarly commander
Rank every Cosul from Lucius Junius Brutus to Augustus
7:58: The Roman Empire truly fell in 1461 when the Ottomans conquered (the Empire of) Trebizond.
Change my mind!
Let’s go David Megas Komnenos
If you'd know nothing about rome and started reading it's history from start to finish, you'd think the "fall of rome" would just be another setback rome would bounce back from, stronger..
Another misconception about Caligula would be his alleged lust to his sister. The only record that slightly indicate it is that he shows a huge grief when her sister passed away.
*his sister passed away.
Not just "a sister", but THREE SISTERS. He slept with his THREE sisters. And that's why he put them on his coins. This is the reason why his mother named him "Caligula" (which means "mad and licentious" in Latin). If you open his passport it says "Caligula Biggus Dickus Incitatus". That's how bad he was.
@@optimusminimus your claims are baseless, Caligula meant little (soldier) boots. Also, it was common for royal family members to appear on coins. There is no credible source stating that Caligula was in S£xual relationship with his sisters.
@@monsieur1936 No, I saw it on Netflix, he clearly slept with them since they were visually attractive. Netflix is a credible source. And you don't simply put random people on coins: only the people you slept with. Especially if you're evil and licentious. So licentious that people even start calling you "Caligula". Imagine someone will start calling you a "Caligula". Trust me, they will do it not because of your shoes, but because of licentiousness.
@@optimusminimus oh yeah, seems like you are a descendant of Caligula and his sister's child.
Only 3 digit views? Hope it increases.
any westerner should be interested in roman history
Roman legionaries didn't just wear red. And everything wasn't uniform with most cohorts. They were often really different from each other.
You should create a patreon for yourself i would subscribe :)
Although there were in did a lot of minor reasons why the Roman Empire fell, There is one major reason that eventually led to its demise and all other minor problems, upon further inspection, can be found stemming from it. So I don't think I agree with that one.
@@Thelaretus diocltions Tetracky or however it's written had littel to do With it. If it wasen't for his micromanagment the empire qould have fallen earlier than it did. Rome Fell because the Romans stopped fighting for themself and deviated from their old Traditions
rome is very epic
Ah yes Mice Duncan has given me many hours of great content.
Can I ask why you took down/privated the video where you rank European countries?
Wasn't happy with it. Ended up needlessly provoking at certain countries, so I privated it after some retrospection on it.
@@spectrum1140 Fair enough
This video is sponsored by olive oil.
Nero didn't directly burn Rome, but he really didn't do much to help the situation especially using Christians as a scapegoat.
English Danish Viking King Canute had sycophant courtiers take him to the seaside where he ordered the tide to go back, which didn't. He, like Caligula, was mocking his sycophant's.
I started watching your channel a few days ago, and only now I can see your Portuguese accent, bom vídeo :)
I disagree with the misconception about statues. I have a picture of myself next to a statue of Caligula that was unearthed in Pompeii. The statue shows no signs of paint. Much of the coloring, even on the walls with frescos, stayed intact.
I think Nero playing the violin whilst rome was burning was a good piece of misinformation to spread.
After all the crazy stuff he did (killing wives) it's a good way to make him look bad.
Ive never commented on a UA-cam video, but I want to now to also recommend The History Of Rome by Mike Duncan. Ive been sleeping to it for 5 years now.
Great little video! Yeah, people who think "Julius might as well have been first emperor" probably are a little uninformed about dictatorship in Rome (and how Julius abused that provision), and Augustus' Constitutional Settlements, which were the building blocks for the Principate and Empire. As for the Fall of Rome: historians quite properly renamed the Eastern part of the formerly great Mediterranean polity to the rather Romantic name of Byzantium. From one standpoint, does it matter, anyway? Civilizations, like the people who make them, eventually die.
Technically, the last, Byzantine Emperor's nephew gave the Roman Emperor Title to the kings of Spain
The planning of his horse becoming a consul was meant as an insult to the senate. The senate and caligula hating each other is why our history of caligula is very negative, historiographically speaking.
As someone who has studdied rome, i still consider GJC as an emperor, as well as those others you mentioned.
So why then was Valentinian I black, Aurelian gold, and the Berber prince who was a Roman general brown?
Just casually viewing this video in Largo Argentina in Rome, where Cesar was killed.