What was life like in the ancient city of Rome after its fall in 476 AD?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- 🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
🤗 Join our Patreon community: / maiorianus
Or become an official Maiorianus member on UA-cam: / maiorianus461
In this video we shall explore the condition of the city of Rome during the kingdom of Odoacer and later Theoderich, and how the city must have looked decades after "The Fall" of the Western Roman Empire. What was the condition of its buildings? How many people were still living in the city? What would you see as a time traveller in the year 536 AD, wandering through the streets of Rome back then? I hope I can show you, that the condition of the city was better than is commonly assumed, and that the real decay only started with the Gothic wars.
🤗 One-Time Donation?
- PayPal: paypal.me/Maio...
- Bitcoin: bc1qv4lsfsplvfecrrgvmfclhga28we7mvh9563xdj
🔗 Share the video with anyone who might be interested (it helps a ton!)
👍 Subscribe to our videos FOR FREE: www.youtube.co...
📚 BEST BOOKS ON THE URBAN HISTORY OF ROME: 📚
1. "History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages" by Ferdinand Gregorovius amzn.to/3yOvjEd
2. "Rome: Profile of a City, 312-1308" by Richard Krautheimer amzn.to/3yyChgp
3. "Rome: An Urban History from Antiquity to the Present" by Rabun Taylor amzn.to/322ClsZ
These are all excellent books if you are like me, absolutely fascinated by the transition of Rome from late antiquity to the early medieval period.
The wonderful background music is by Adrian von Ziegler: • Relaxing Roman Music -...
Scenes from Documentaries:
1. BBC The Rise and Fall of an Empire: The Fall of Rome
2. BBC The Rise and Fall of an Empire: Constantine
🎦 FILMING EQUIPMENT WE USE: 🎦
Webcam: amzn.to/3yFSFvu
Microphone: amzn.to/3e2ZFsW
Disclosures: Some links in the description are affiliate links which means that if you purchase something by clicking on one of them, your host Sebastian will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. In this way you will be supporting the channel to improve the video production quality at no extra cost to you.
📬 Contact us: maiorianus.sebastian@gmail.com
#Maiorianus
Salvete Amici ! There is a mistake at 7:00. Of course Theoderich did not reign as western emperor, but as king. This was a simple editing mistake. Thanks and Bene Vale !
Your videos are amazing
I adore your videos, I have watched all of them. One note, since I see you are frequently using some latin words, I would suggest to try and pronounce them correctly as they sound in latin (“amici” especially, since you are using it pretty often). I hope it doesn’t come across as a hate comment, but it kind of throws me off. Keep it up!
@@itscatalin Hello Catalin :) Actually this is the way latin was really pronounced. The "c" in latin was pronounced as "k". So Amici would really be pronounced "Amiki". What you are referring to is church latin. In Church latin, it would sound Amici like Amiji. But since we are a channel about the classical, not the ecclasiastical Rome, we will use the correct old latin pronounciating. So c=k, ae=ai, oe=oi, and so on :) Thanks again and have a great day.
arguable, he did receive the imperial regalia, and some authors of the period called him augustus
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian ok, my bad. my native language is based on latin (Romanian) and it is pronounced “amici” (just like in most of the latin languages), that is why I was confused. But also in school I studied latin and “c” was pronounced the same. All this time I was wrong thinking it’s the classical latin that I was learning…
This was fascinating! I feel it is very significant that in the end it was not barbarians who destroyed Rome, but the Romans themselves, having lost all faith and respect in the imperium of their ancestors...
After 550 AD till 751 Rome was rule by Romans again.
Just like us in the West today:-)
I dislike this "moralistic" framing. All that is known is that old buildings and statues were wrecked for new ones. Nobody can say that disrespect and lack of faith in the empire were driving motivating factors.
As usual, once you grow hungry and you need a roof over your head, traditions and national pride mean jack shit. Both won't feed or shelter you.
Only entitled people don't care about achievements of their fathers... The same now happens in N. America...
I always wanted to see a video making a scenario where we showed augustus, or some other great roman at the height of their magnificent civilization, transported to the city of rome in 1400, and how he would’ve reacted. If I were him I would straight up cry.
in the 1400 the city was in better shape than in the 600-800s he would cry, but the city was better organized since the the 400's
but to have this reaction, yes, it would be the 700's the better time for this, even aachen, a city ruled by christian barbarians(in the eyes of the romans) would be in better shape than rome because it would be much newer than the eternal city
To say that it were the East Romans which destroyed the city of Rome and started the "Dark Ages" is in many aspects true, but it is not the whole truth. Urbanity started to change and to decline as early as the 4th centruy. The process of constructing new buildings and monuments stopped after the 3rd century altogether. Old buildings were indeed maintained until the 6th century, at least partially. One can blame social change for this fact, as the old model which underpinned the construction of buildings ("voluntary" charity by wealthy citizens) was broken but a new model hadn't been arrived at.
Well, the Ostrogoths destroyed Rome and depopulated the city, even if the Romans started the war. As soon as the war ended, rebuilding efforts began under Narses.
@@histguy101 Fair enough. In hindsight, the war was a mistake. Ostrogothic Italy was still, in principle and in the propaganda on both sides, a part of the Roman commonwealth, albeit under a different administration with de facto independence. Afterwards it was a poor and thoroughly destroyed frontier province.
The city of Rome lacked any significance culturally or politically even before 476. The only significance Rome had when Justinian was reclaiming the west was purely symbolic.
@KommentarSpaltenKrieger 129394032
Hello Sir and welcome to this channel !
But your theory is in fact not very strongly supported by archeological evidence. We can for example read at Krautheimer et al. that Rome had even as late as 455 AD, shortly before the Vandal sack, a population of 800,000 people, not so much less than 200 years earlier. They arrived at this number using grain and pork supply numbers from that time.
It is also wrong that no new buildings were constructed after the 3rd century altogether. We have the last gigantic monuments of Rome built as late as 320 AD with the Baths of Constantine, the temple of Romulus and the giant Basilica of Maxentius.
So the archeological evidence goes against your theory. I will make many more videos on this complex topic and hopefully I can shed more light on it, because I really get the impression that most people have an oversimplified or wrong view of what happened in that era. But it's not their fault, because these views have been propagated in countless books.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian Thanks for your comment. The claim that Rome had a population of 800,000 people as late as the mid-5th century seems controversial to me. I think some scholars even argue that it never exceeded 500,000 to begin with. As far as I know the city peaked between the 1st and the 2nd century A.D. and then lost people to pandemics, sackings and turmoil.
As far as I know Constantine was a bit of an outlier, but you are correct that he commissione new buildings so my statement was too sweeping to be correct.
I'm very interested on what you'll have to say to support your thesis in upcoming videos.
This explains something I read decades ago in the 1956 Funk & Wagnall's encyclopedia: "While no specific date can be attributed to the fall of the Roman Empire, it is generally agreed that the end came...in 476AD, although few of the people who lived through it would have realized it was happening."
So in a nutshell: there was still hope for Rome until 536. With a few more Theoderics it could have flourished again. - I am looking forward to the year 536 AD and Belisarius then. Even if the Romans probably did not so much. - I really like this channel.
Hello Frank, than you very much for your friendly words, I am so happy to see so many people like you interested in this fascinating period, where antiquity ended, and the dark ages began. Yes, a few more Theoderichs, and latin civilization and old roman structures would have survived in Italy. Rome would not have fallen to the lows we would see in our timeline in the 7th and 8th centuries. That poses a really excelletn scenario for a "what if video" :)
Really, until the recurring plague in 541, 590, etc, and Arab conquests. That's when antiquity really ended in both east and west, imo.
I believe "476" was something created by Justinian as Cassus Belli to invade the west(who still believed they were part of the empire). He mentions the date in his "New Laws" and he has to have the west "fall" if he's going to "take it back."
The Roman Empire still stands. It’s called the Roman Catholic Church.
Now 76, six decades ago, I argued this point with my university professors, insisting vociferously, that it made no sense that Rome didn't continue and fade slowly as its power base was transferred to Byzantium, and "barbarians"' were all "non-Romans" not uncultured, chest beaters. They patronizingly told me I couldn't be more WRONG ad infinitum !! Archaelogy has since proven them wrong.
another example of stupid ignorant professors holding back progress and knowledge.
A good video, but I thought that in 410 the basilicas Julia and Amelia were burnt, and also some other areas of the city. Aristocratic houses on the Caelian hill were certainly burnt. These sackings, plus the neglect and indeed spoliation of the ancient temples by the Romans themselves must have affected the city. But yes, the ruination of the water supplies during the stupid gothic wars of Justinian will have made large parts of the city uninhabitable. The rest is ever more spoliation by the Romans themselves, and anyone else who passed through and wanted some bronze or marble. This was a brilliant exposition by the way, thank you.
Ave Justinian
@Richard Smith Hello Richard, thank you for your excellent comment. Indeed, it is quite astonishing that the only documented burning from the sack of 410 AD, was that the gardens of Sallust fell to fire. The Basilica Julia and Basilica Aemilia were actually not damaged, according to the sources I use. On that topic, I mostly use Ferdinand Gregorovius' work, because he painstakingly searched himself for old documents about the state of the buildings. Apparently the burning of the gardens of Sallust are the only documented damage done to the builings in 410. What was really disastrous though, was the blow to the morale of the romans, and of course to their wealth. Rome would start the descent from richest city, to poor city. This would be made worse in the sacks of 455 and 472. After 472, Rome's population was so impoverished, that the Spolia started raging for real, and Theoderich had to issue laws later to stop it. Thanks and best regards!
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian . Agreed. I have always believed that the Romans, having had periodic invasions and wars which had caused them huge problems; I’m thinking of the Gauls during the republic, the Carthaginians and the Germans particularly, had come to believe that all setbacks could and would be reversed. As you say, finally their morale was destroyed, along with their economy, and the predations of enemies could no longer be reversed. Of course many factors are involved, and it is this complication which makes the story so interesting. Rome is, I think, a metaphor for all history, and our times particularly. Again, many thanks for your research and brilliant storytelling.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian
The Basilica Aemilia *was* damaged. The roof burned and collapsed, which we can still see today as there's remains of molten bronze from both the ceiling and from coins on the floor of the basilica. The facade also seems to have collapsed, as it was substantially rebuilt in the 5th Century using spolia. The same happened to the Basilica Julia, but there the damage seems to have been more minimal.
@Richard Smith why do you consider the reconquering of Italy by the Byzantines stupid ? So far the whole campaign was an immense success, they only failed to keep it in the long run because the black plagues struck right after and a series of natural disaster such as the eruption of massive volcano caused a climatic cooldown causing agriculturals crops to fails for years... Just lookout for 536 AD on Wikipedia, this period was considering as the worst in the human civlisation period
I’m glad I’m not the only one obsessed with the V, VI and VII centuries
When Rome became (again) the capital of Italy in 1871, occupied by the kingdom of Savoy the city was about 250.000 inhabitants, it was a small town. It looked more a big village then an European capital.
Makes sense, right? If we put ancient history aside, modern Italy was often run by the prosperous cities of Venice or Milan, am I correct?
@@stevens1041 not quite. By 1871, Venice had well passed its golden age. The main economic centres were, as you said, Milan, but also and most importantly Turin, which was the capital of Italy. Naples, Genoa and Florence too, to a lesser extent
Can we all just admit that this guy's accent makes the videos that much better?
Interesting how the writings of Procopius to some degree contradict the earlier claims that it was the Romans who so often demolished their own structures for use as building materials.
Our nations are ran by germans who rather believe the Holy Roman Empire is the real empire while the Eastern Empire isn’t. They call them Byzantium and spread many lies. Thus in this story a german ruler somehow is more honest than the Eastern Roman account on Rome…
So happy to have found this channel: the host is obviously very knowledgeable and I enjoy the calm way he talks; also I love that the videos are so detailed Great job, thank you very much
Absolutely love the content, you solely have gotten me more interested in the late WRE. Keep up the great work!
Hello Kole, thanks a lot friend of Rome, I really appreciate your kind words. It inspires me to keep making many more videos on the late roman empire :)
Wow, what an incredible channel! It's almost hypnotic and Maiorianus clearly loves what he's doing as you can hear it in his voice.
Truly amazing!!
Rome's decrease of population in the sixth century was related to the destruction of the aqueducts during the Gothic-Byzantine war under Theoderic and the stop of the grain delivery after the Vandals had conquered the western part of the North African provinces. A population of several hundreds of thousends of inhabitants could bo longer be supplied.
I'm highly skeptical of your first statement. The aqueducts of Rome mainly served things like fountains and baths. The main source of water for the citizens came from wells.
The main reason for the depopulation was, as you said, the lack of sufficient grain production. However, plagues and sacks further pushed people to move to the countryside
The decline and fall of the western Roman Empire is a precursor to what's happening right now in the United States and "the West" in general. The barbarians at the gates are most often blamed, but the enemy within (e.g., moral decadence, corruption, and self-loathing) are what cause the most damage. Excellent video, with many pertinent lessons for we moderns. "The more that things change, the more they stay the same."
No, it's even worse. It's not the fall of Rome, it's the BRONZE AGE COLLAPSE all over again. ALL COUNTRIES will disappear and then be rebuilt like Assyria, Babylon, Greece and so on. China, Russia, USA, Europe, they will all fade away and reappear as smaller countries. The East is just as doomed as the West.
Indeed
Wdym with self-loathing? and moral decadence?
The decadence theory has been disproven so many times that bringing it up makes you look like someone from the 50ties. No offense to you as an individual in but you REALLY need to update your sources.
@@Arcaryonhello sweetie pie❤
YEEEEESSSS new vid of the best late roman empire youtuber :)
There was no scene of decay in Rome until Renaissance. The various rulers of the city repurposed the buildings and renovated them according to the fashions that succeeded resulting in their look being more and more byzantine rather than classical : many marble walls gave way to mosaics, and columns were replaced by arches. The German rulers were obsessive compulsive about tidy look. Either a building was to be put to some use, or demolished for the materials. Many former temples were transformed into fortified castles. Later on the medieval constructions were demolished during the Renaissance to be used as quarries, hence the ruins. The colosseum even though it no longer showed gladiators showed commedia dell arte, though the grandstands were replaced by terraces and the outer walls were fortified.
I disagree on the part "no scene of decay". Rome was definitely in decayed and in poverty from 7 - late 10 century. Germanic rulers, obviously obsessed with the title "Roman Emperor", but Rome was still foreign country to them, none of them stayed long enough to be effective renovator. The building of Rome was put in charge to bishops and Popes to which many new churches were constructed and maintained, beside churches, legacies of the past were already in terrible conditions. Palatine palace was collapsed and abandoned for hundreds of year before it was rebuilt in late 10 century
Remember, Rome and whole Italy were surrounded by enemies and suffered repeated raiding for many centuries after Justinian reconquest until the time of Otto II who died in 984 AD
@@duysonnguyen9960 The German Kings, like the Germanic cultures were and have remained were obsessive compulsive : they had no patience for ruins and decay. What they couldn't repurpose they wiped out. In particular any vestige that risked giving the impression that pagan Rome was richer than the Christian one had to be demolished. No stone unturned was their motto. Most former temples were turned into fortresses. They destroyed fast and rebuilt fast. When the foundations were too hard to demolish or when their stone had too little building value they buried it. In a certain sense they were very modern : they behaved like American builders when facing older or too Spanish-styled living districts : demolition. Christian kings and prelates before Renaissance considered any pagan work as boding ill luck as long as it stood or it had not been ritually repurposed and exorcized by a long ceremonial.
Phenomenal video and presentation! I follow a lot of history on UA-cam and you sir definitely have done a great job here! Please keep It up- your new subscriber!
Hello Gumbie007, thanks a lot amicus, I really appreciate your kind words :)
Man i can say you truly deserved more subscribers
After your AD 476 video this one is perfect ! Thank you very much. I wish more young people would have some of this knowledge . We’ve visited Rome 30 times. Can’t get enough
Best channel on Roman History, ever.
Thanks a lot Kimberly, that is really high praise and I would be already happy to be ranked among the better Roman history channels :)
In 663 Constans visited Rome for twelve days-the only emperor to set foot in Rome for two centuries-and was received with great honor by Pope Vitalian (657-672). Although on friendly terms with Vitalian, he stripped buildings, including the Pantheon, of their ornaments and bronze to be carried back to Constantinople, and in 666 declared the Pope of Rome to have no jurisdiction over the Archbishop of Ravenna,
The empire was in a true crisis, as all of Europe was about to be. This was the height the Arab and Slavic invasions. The Sassanid Persian empire had recently collapsed. Egypt and Syria were lost for good after being Roman for 700+ years. North Africa was under attack. Within a decade, Islamic pirates would begin raiding European coastlines
Constans was a good emperor, and definitely needed money for armies.
And notably, the Islamic and later Ottoman supported Barbary Pirates caused the dark ages in Europe by making trade and travel dangerous. They enslaved and brutally killed millions of Europeans, and this is not known by most people today.
Do you not know that the seat of power of the Roman Empire was in Constantinople?
Another great video! I love your latin pronunciations as well. I'd be interested to listen to you explain the circumstances and evolution of the large rich estates in the west which foreshadowed the later feudal system, and how these estates interacted with their Germanic occupiers. It's always been a topic I've wanted to learn more of.
Hello Blake and thank you very much :) Yes, that is an excellent topic, and I will add it to my daily growing list of topics that I want to discuss (100+ topics and growing daily). I hope I can come to that topic asap, but for that we must go back to the crisis of the 3rd century, and I first had some other topics. But hang in there, it will certainly be discussed at some point :)
The Latin pronunciation may be fine but the English pronunciation is not so fine. Why not have it commented by a native speaker ?
I like your videos very much!
Thank you for the great work :)
And also that you show your literature and sources. That's very valuable
Thanks for explaining the slow decline of Rome even after successive invasions by barbarians. You also talk about how the Romans were themselves responsible for stripping the old monuments for sourcing new building material, but here I think you miss a very important point. Romans lost value for the monuments because they were (forcefully) converted from Paganism to Christianity in a relatively short span of one hundred years. The reason Romans (spiritually, politically, materially, financially) invested in their monuments earlier was because they held them sacred and regularly interacted with those divinities. The temple spaces were very much part of their daily public life, for every rank in society, from the emperor to the common man. No aspect of Roman culture was separate from the Pagan religion the Romans followed. This polytheistic diverse culture was wiped out and replaced by a monotheistic culture that actively demonized and persecuted any expression of paganism (Sorry, but the occasional chariot races and animal hunts were exceptions to the rule and cannot be viewed as tolerance for old pagan rituals). Without their ancient religion and religious practices, there was simply no need to preserve the monuments because in that era there was no concept of preservation of monuments for the sake of knowledge of future generations the way monuments are protected in the modern age. This was not the case in the new capital Constantinople which was constructed entirely in the Christian age, hence the city flourished because the Eastern Emperors gave value to the monuments right from the time the capital was established. Therefore the real decline of Rome started with Constantine's victory at Battle of Milvian Bridge and his shifting the capital to the East and his state support for Christianity which ultimately doomed Rome.
@Ayan Ghosh
Hello Ayan and welcome to the channel :)
This is a very good point you raise, and no, I did not overlook or miss any point, because I have a list of 200 plus topics that I want to discuss in future videos, and the forceful conversion of the old pagan society to Christianity is extremely important and cannot be overstated. It did affect all layers of society and it absolutely created an estrangement of the population of Rome towards their ancestry. Pagan statues, buildings, symbols were now seen as evil, so a demolition of a temple of the old gods was absolutely tolerated by the church, probably even supported.
You see, if I would try to pack every single reason for this change of Rome into one video, then the video would be 3 hours long, which is impractical for youtube. But as I said, I will soon talk about this important aspect, but it deserves a separate video :)
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian Looking forward to it. I would like to mention here why this is an important subject because the conversion of the Romans to Christianity was the first major success of the new religion which was not only instrumental in its spread and patronage thereafter (mainly by the Byzantine Empire) but also because this established a model in later era colonization in the middle ages from Europe into the Americas, Asia, and Africa, where the indigenous older pagan religions were ruthlessly wiped out in a very short span of time to be permanently replaced by a foreign religion just like what happened in Rome (Christianity emerged in the Middle East but spread from Europe).
And the Third Century Crisis and constant civil wars didn't decline Rome? Depopulation, collapse of Augustus' trade networks, hundred year devaluation of coins, massive expenditures in the military starting with Septimius Severus, all which also led to the rise of serfdom are probably a lot more important than some cultural sensitivities or what religion Rome had. There is a reason Constantine and Diocletian before him chose to focus their power in the East which was always richer even when Marcus Antonius and Octavius ruled.
Not even Diocletian could eradicate the Christians. Like it or not, by the time of Constantine, the Christians were now part of Rome. The best that could've been done was to make Christianity a Roman religion.
Thinking that if Constantine did the same as Diocletian in regards to Christianity, Rome would survive seems rather foolish.
Great perspective, thanks
There is a sadness that i cant express with words. So much love and effort went into each temple and statue and all it seems
swallowed by charybdis, by time, by the passing and going of man, so that one
day only the memory of these places is all that remains.
The last consul of Rome was Anicius Faustus Albinus Basilius in 541 AD After 476 AD, consuls were not appointed by Odoaker but by the East Roman emperors. After 541 AD, the East Roman emperors no longer appointed consuls of Rome thus abolishing the office de facto. Nevertheless, until 641 AD, when Heraklios became Easr Roman emperor (or basileus), the East Roman emperors were formally declared consuls of Rome for several days at the beginning of their reign.
I don't know if you're going to read my comment but I loved your video. What I learned from it was not that the city of Rome died but was the power that came from the city the one that died in 476 AD but the city still triving :)
Thank you, I saw 3 adds I turned my adblock for you just for this one.
Hello Sir, thank you very much for your kind words and thank you even for turning off your ad blocker :)
That is very well said. Yes, the power that came from the city had died, but the city still lived on after 476 until 536. It was only the gothic wars where the true disaster started.
Thanks for watching the video, and have a nice day.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian thank you so much for answering
Before watching, I'll say No. Justinian and Belisarius, "the Last of the Romans", brought the Dark Ages to Italy. Theodoric the Great ran things pretty well after the Fall of the West (and after he yeeted Odoacer), and in truth Theodoric's career rather rebuts the whole notion that Rome "fell" in 476. He was basically an Emperor who called himself king. He rebuilt Domitian's old palace and Aurelian's old city walls, just off the top of my head. When that great king died, the Greeks from the East laid waste to Rome and the whole Italian peninsula. All right, now we'll see what the video says. EDIT: Yep. Very informative!
@Classic Life, Excellent friend of Rome, excellent knowledge you show there ! Thanks for your wonderful comment, I am really happy to see such a level of knowledge here in the comment section. Yes, indeed, and I will explore the gothic wars and their catastrophic effects onto Rome and Italy in one of the next videos. It is the irony of history, that Justinian, the emperor who wanted to restore Rome, actually destroyed it.
The Romans were merely reclaiming what was theirs from the barbarians that had taken it. What does it matter if a bit of collateral damage was caused if the eternal city was restored to the roman empire? And I would like to know what Greeks you are talking about, Justinian and his court were Latin speaking Romans.
As for Theodoric, I'm certain you are aware of how much the Romans despised the term king, no man calling himself as such could ever be an Augustus of the Roman empire.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian Absolutely. Thanks for the kind words, btw!
@@Vasilefs_Terranorum I remember you from another channel, you're the guy who didn't know who Septimius Severus was, despite a video being about him directly. As for your comments here, did you even watch the video? It answers your point definitively. The West was doing fine under the German kings and didn't need, or want, reclaiming after almost 20 years of Odoacer's decent rule, and DEFINITELY not after the rule of Theoderic the Great. Of course, you probably hadn't watched the Severus video either, confusing him with Diocletian, who ruled a century later.
@@classiclife7204 you must have confused me with someone else. I like to think of myself as an enthusiast of roman history, the prospect of me forgetting the founder of the Severan dynasty is ludicrous. Regardless, I never disputed the fact that Italy had somewhat stabalized under the Ostrogoths, but my point was that the Romans were entirely justified in reconquering their own homeland, and any collateral damage would have been worth it.
Edit: besides you did not answer my question, who are these Greeks you speak of? The empire was ruled by Latin speaking Romans.
What an interesting video! Thanks for sharing with us 👍
You’re a dear friend, Maiorianus! I’m looking forward to many more of your excellent videos.
Thanks a lot Kimberly, I feel really honored to read such a kind comment. I will try my best to keep making such videos :)
Fascinating journey you've led us on, through the history of the late Roman world. I am always eager for more. Superb work!
Your videos are fantastic. When I went to Rome in the early 2000s I was amazed by the buildings I imagined what it was like then it was wonderful walking the streets seeing roman buildings still in use
Thank you for speaking so slow and well articulated!
This video is an absolute masterpiece. Thank you so so much for your work.
This channel is a gem.
Excellent video. So pleased you aren’t forgetting the Eastern Roman Empire too 👏 can’t wIt for the next one
the city authorities tried to maintain the monumental center of the city as long as possible while. by 800 it was pretty much a mess. the domus augustana was still intact mostly in the 11th century.
You are doing a wonderful job, if you can at the same time or even one after one, you should also do videos about Rome in his peak and Rome compared to Costantinople like you said, it would be an amazing mix if we put also this series together
Where do you get all these amazing recreation illustration views of Rome? Those are amazing and I've never seen them before.
Very interesting facts. I'm surprised that Rome's main structures were that well preserved.
But i would definitely still say: yes, the Dark Ages already started. The economic status of the people of Rome was so diminished that there's a clear discontinuity between the 5th century and the 6th. It was no coincidence that people kept going to the countryside, depopulating the city.
People leaving Rome doesn't mean it's a dark ages. A dark age is period without historical sources.
@@histguy101 And why are you convinced that farmers are particularly good writers...?
The two things (depopulation of cities - lack of non essential operations like history telling) are consequential. Cities are the places where humanity develops beyond subsistence, where knowledge and order are created. The loss of which, BTW, also denotes a dark age.
@jorehir
Hello ! I would argue otherwise. The dark ages did not start uniformly everywhere at the same time. In fact, I will make a video on that very topic. We can agree that for example in Britannia, the dark ages started really early, when Constantine III left the island, in the early 5th century. Cities were depopulated quickly there, a transformation to a rural society occured quickly. The situation is entirely different in Italy, where we have a well established road network, dense city centers and a roman administration and institutios, where contrary to Britannia, the new "masters" themselves wanted to preserve Roman Culture. Theoderich did everything in his power to preserve the old institutions, buildings, arts. We could even argue that the situation in Italy in the early 500s was actually better than 50 years before, when the city experienced brutal sackings on a regular basis.
The city had not been depopulated after 476. In fact, the population of Rome was really stable from 476 to 536. The real disaster started with the eastern roman reconquest under Justinian I, when Rome would experience extreme wars, repeated disastrous sackings, where at one point only a few thousand people remained in the city. That is when people really started fleeing Rome to the countryside, so after the 540s, and not already in the 470s. There is also plenty of archeological evidence to support this. But don't worry, I will make many many more videos on this topic, for it fascinates me the most.
@@jorehir There were more people writing in the 6th century Roman world than there was during the 2nd century high empire. Farmer writers? I don't know what you mean
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian I agree about the non-even transition into the Dark Ages, but the focus was on the city of Rome.
Even when the infrastructures are still standing, it doesn't mean they're operational. Roads, that you mention, can't be used when security is not granted. Similarly, city infrastructures serving over 1 million inhabitants can't be effectively upkept by a population of 150k. So, as willing as the Germanics might have been to preserve everything Rome had to offer, that was simply not doable in that context.
I don't understand why you say that Rome hadn't been depopulated by 476, when it seems that a sharp population decline had already begun in the early 400s. In fact, because of that, it could be even argued that the Dark Ages started in Rome in the early 400s, if it wasn't for the fact that the city had still a few tricks up its sleeve.
Even more pessimistically, one could trace the beginning of the Dark Ages at even earlier times, like the early 3rd century. That's when the Empire entered an industrial, cultural, artistic, religious, financial, demographic and military crisis it never recovered from. But, again, the Empire's inertia (as well as that of Rome) was still considerable enough to postpone the beginning of the Dark Ages to later times.
I can’t express how much I enjoy your videos. Magnum officium amicus
Pretty good video, It's nice to finally see some more videos about this period that don't solely relate to politics or war on UA-cam. However I do wish you took a more critical approach when it comes to the primary sources.
Theoderic did issue edicts prohibiting the use of spolia from ancient buildings, this is true. But the fact that these laws had to be re-issued several times (under Majorian, Theoderic, Justinian etc.) suggests that they were not enforced well, and probably weren't very effective. Rome, after all, was a fraction of its former self. These buildings could no longer be maintained with such a small population and massively decreased wealth. When you have ancient buildings like this standing around, crumbling because they can't be maintained, with all these fantastic architectural bits and bobs, you can't help but consider using it for building material. It was either preserving it in a different building or letting it crumble in many cases. There wasn't necessarily much animosity with regards to the ancient sites, it was often merely a case of pragmatism.
You also mention that most temples would have been closed for a long time by this point. I always wonder, when I read this in the literature, what exactly that means. What does it mean for a temple to be "closed"? Is it just left intact inside and locked? Can people get in? Are they used for storage? I wish there was somewhere I could look to get a better understanding of what it means in practical terms, maybe you could make a video on that even, if there is anything to work with.
@marvelfannumber1
Hello and welcome to the channel :)
I do always take a very critical approach with my primary sources. These are accounts from Olympiodorus the elder who visited Rome after "The Fall" of 476 AD, and from Symmachus and Cassiodorus, and even from Procopius. They all describe the buildings in great detail and we are told that the Forum Area in that time was completely intact. So was the Colosseum, the Colossus of Sol, the temples near the Forum Area.
The purpose of this video is to show the surprising fact that the state of Rome was not as utterly desolate before the Gothic wars, as is sometimes said elsewhere in a very oversimplified manner.
It is true that the buildings towards the fringes of the city had started to fall into disrepair, because the city was extremely large for that time, and the population had declined.
Because I get the impression that many people believe that the city completely crumbled after 476, which is as we can see from Symmachus, Cassiodorus and Procopius, not true. Yes, some buildings were beyond repair, but others, especially around the Forum area were really well maintained.
The temples had been forced "shut" by Theodosius in 394 AD after his victory at the Frigidus River. In the next episode I will talk about how the death of paganism also massively contributed to the phenomenon of Spolia.
Many temples were converted into storage spaces. One could not enter them, but they were well maintained to still look nice from the outside. On the inside, they were however barren and bereft of the old statues.
Keep it up man, love your lesson from late western roman empire
I listen to your videos also for a pleasure. You have such an interesting content on your channel. It gives me a great joy to listen to you.
why is this channel so immersive in comparison to all the others talking about all the same topics. as a historian I love this guys ability to tell a story. I recommend you start covering battles Majorian you would eclipse everyone with your thoroughness.
Thank you for your videos. I had always wondered how much changed and didn't change after 476 and never got any good explanations. I always assumed it wouldn't have been a total change for the population and that much of their regular life must have continued as usual for quite some time.
Fascinating! I was searching for this untold history of Rome after 476AD for years and finaly found it! Congrats and Thanks! 😃
So glad to be a senior. I won't be around to see this happening again over the next few decades.
Fascinating, my friend ! To many thanks for this marvelous jorney, thanks a lot.
New to studying Ancient Rome. This video impresses instantly.
Rock on!
So sad seems almost post apocalyptic. Living among all these ruins and amenities no one can build or maintain anymore
I find it crazy how it took like 1500 years for urban areas to get plumbing and things like that back.
that's how our cities are starting to look now.
@@voxveritas333 name some, matter fact what city u live in?
@@marcoantonioc5437 go to downtown Los Angeles, classical buildings everywhere surrounded by homeless. A different civilization built the city, and we merely inhabit the ruins of what they built. We couldn't built a new highway let alone the highway system, of the great tunnels that criss cross the down town area.
@@jileelmcdaniels7331 i’m from la. i get what ur saying, sure
@@marcoantonioc5437 you know, going to places like spring st, or really anywhere in downtown you really get the feeling that those people like the Romans wanted to build structures that would last forever. They surely didn't have to built massive bridges made of stone across the small la river, but they wanted to make a point. Our idiot generation is ruining it. If you haven't already I would say you should visit some of these places while they last. Love LA, but hate what's been done to it. Have a good one.
With you all the way ! Bravo. I’m so interested in this. Keep them coming. Please !
Could you make a video about the decline of Roman paganism? It's often oversimplified to 'Theodosius banned it, and all pagans disappeared'. The truth is that there were pagans who lived in Rome long afterwards. Honorius and Arcadius both passed anti-pagan edicts. The wife of Theodosius II was a pagan who converted to Christianity when she married him. Anthemius minted coins that bore images of Heracles. To my knoweldge, the last remnants of paganism, as well as manichaeism, were only eradicated by emperor Justinian, many years after the ban by Theodosius.
A haunting view of a world slowly leaving the stage. So sad !
Is it just me, or, these kind of events repeats itself in history?
Ça c’était un très bon vidéo. J’ai trouvé cette histoire si fascinante 😊
Il me semble qu’il y a toujours une tristesse quand des empires et des histoires meurent mais il y a aussi un grand désir de protéger cette histoire et continuer…. Je suis certain que même les romains d’astere adorent leur ville 😊
Excellent video!!!
The fault of the destruction of the buildings was of the popes in my opinion. Greetings of a latin man from the south of the world
Thank you for such a wonderfully detailed History. I have learnt so much from this.
Absolutely fascinating stuff. Isn't the Internet wonderful? Thank you so much for uploading such quality content. I can't imagine the amount of research that must have gone into your videos. I'm going through all your videos right now and I'm totally fascinated. I love the Late Antique/Early Christian era (and have taught Art History of that time for many years).
If only I could witness an American 403 CE and experience the glory of a final EVER NFL game.
Witnessing the death of the NFL would be peak experience.
Epic truly
Can you do a video on the city of Alexandria as well and what happened to the palace of Cleopatra the lighthouse.
And the lighthouse*
Hello Brighton, yes of course, I have planned a few episodes about Alexandria as well, and about Constantinople. We shall look at the urban history of both of these amazing cities, and hopefully many more in the future. Alexandria is fascinating for many reasons, and was one of the largest cities of the ancient word.
thanksss for the efforttt.
My pleasure Serdar :) And thanks so much for watching the video!
Thank you for the video!
It's easy to shame late Romans for the cannibalization of their old monuments, but this is a naive first world stance taken from a modern position of met needs taken for granted.
Nobody actually in that situation would choose preserving a building, old or not, over providing shelter and other practical needs for their family and community... including the people watching/making these videos, if they were in that situation. You're lying to yourself if you claim otherwise.
Old temples serve no every day practical purpose other than "ooooh, look what our great great great grandfather's build 400 years ago". They don't feed the community, they don't contribute to commercial prosperity or trade, they don't generate revenue and they serve no defensive/military purpose. It makes perfect sense to use the materials to better the lives of the people still living in the city as those lives are more important than the ghosts of the past.
Excellent program. I learned a great deal from your well done research.
Much of this overlooks the fact there was no real wealth in Rome after the fall. They may have had an outward appearance of continuity but it was false.
What a stupendous video - thank you!!!
This is sad. A once great people who built magnificent things crumbled and ruined their own society.
Kind of like what is happening now.
I would argue that the Western Roman Empire was extinguished when the Eastern Roman Empire invaded and toppled the Ostrogothic government. There was really no need for this, the Ostrogoths still considered the Western Empire a Roman Republic together with the East and stressed this in official correspondence. Ideally, the Easterners could have worked with them to restore western European territory.
Pls make a video on the unsung Gallienus
Gallienus was a hero and he certainly deserves a video. He is on my very long list of topics to cover :)
This part of history makes me sad and amazes me
Love the content, thanks for your hard work!! I have a huge question, are the clips of the city of Rome from a game?? If so I have to play it haha
Thanks for everything 👏
Very informative!! I’m subscribed!
The invasion of the Eastern Romans was a disaster for the people of Italy and the end of the Western Roman state. The Ostrogoths were at least trying to ensure a continuation of the Western Empire and for the local Italo-Romans the Western state continued to function. The locals also lived in relative peace and the economy and prosperity was gradually recovering.
Hey man I am loving your channel! I do also have some experience using Sony Vegas and, if you want, we could try to do a video together - where you do the history and I edit, based on what you're saying (could also do battles, for example).
Hello ma22be61, thank you very much, and thanks for your offer :) You can send me an email to the adress given on the youtube homepage of the channel, and then you can tell me more about your idea. Best regards!
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian Sure, an e-mail should come your way soon, amicus :)
This is such outstanding content.
Amazing video
“By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable” = definition of a Straw Man ‘argument’.
It makes sense that Romans would destroy Rome. It’s a common pattern in history.
You need a certain number of people to keep things going, keep things maintained. If the population dropped from 1 million to 100,000, there is no way the ancient splendor of the city could be sustained.
Did the Roman grain dole still exist at this time, notably after the loss of North Africa? Apparently Theodoric paid it, but there is speculation on whether this was a continuation of it, or a restoration of it?
Love your videos, this channel will be good
Do you have a video on the after math of the fall of constantiople?
I don't necessarily agree that the Romans were "idiots" for getting rid of old historical buildings for practical reasons. It's not like they would expect people a thousand years in the future still seeing value in them. Sure, it's somewhat shortsighted.
The big problem was cultural estrangement, created by the adoption of Christianity. Only buildings were preserved that were converted to churches. Other buildings, especially with pagan statues and symbols were seen as evil. The sense for beauty, architecture and the engineering of antiquity had completely died. It would take a long time until the Renaissance, until this sense for beauty was rediscovered again.
i agree with urlocallordandsaviour. i guess trade had taken a beating as well, so certain materials were only available in old buildings? i mean. if you want to build a house in this context
Had to subscribe, good video. The like of Rome sadly won't be seen again.
great graphic video
Wonderful! Thank you.
🇮🇹🤔DEMOGRAPHY OF ROME
IX century BC - (about 1000 inhabitants)
VIII century BC - (about 10,000 inhabitants)
VII century BC . - (about 30,000 inhabitants)
VI century BC - (about 50,000 inhabitants)
V century BC - (about 70,000 inhabitants)
IV century BC . - (about 100,000 inhabitants)
III century BC - (about 187,000 inhabitants)
II century BC - (about 320,000 inhabitants)
I century BC - (about 650,000 to 800,000 inhabitants)
I century AD - (from about 1,200,000 to 1,500,000 inhabitants)
II century AD - (from about 1,200,000 to 1,700,000 inhabitants)
III century AD - (from about 1,200,000 inhabitants)
IV century AD - (from about 700,000 to 1,000,000 inhabitants)
V century AD - (about 650,000 inhabitants)
VI century AD - - (about 200,000 inhabitants)
(The second sack by the Vandals (455), much more destructive than the previous one, which was followed by years of war and famine, decimated the population, so that at the beginning of the sixth century. the inhabitants of Rome did not exceed 200,000 people)
After the Gothic War which devastated Lazio and a large part of Italy for almost twenty years (535-553), the population still fell to no more than 100,000 people
Awesome. Thank you
“Broken glass everywhere! People pissin on the street you know they just don’t care!”
Great video. Thank you for covering these Eras of Rome’s history🙏🙏🙏
Edit: you really feel the expense in trying to keep up with Time judging by the actions of the Goths😮
Reminds me of steel belt USA, like Detroit, or old mining towns (once mine shut.)
Great video!
They were building new homes with the materials from the old buildings, or repairing ones that were damaged or in disrepair? It seems that they were accustomed to an imperial standard of living, and when the age of conquests were over they only had their own past to conquer and use as material.
Hello! I love your videos! And also love the artwork, what is the name of the painting on 7:40? It is one of the most realistic I have ever seen. Thanks
An Excelent videio