Get 51% OFF any premium World Anvil subscription with code "MAIORIANUS" www.worldanvil.com/?c=maiorianus. Thanks to World Anvil for sponsoring this video!
@@commentfreely5443 It was more a center of major trade routes between Black and Mediterranean seas. Plus it was way more safer then Italy, what was already raided several times.
The heirs of the Byzantine Empire can be considered the Venetian Republic and the Duchy of Rome (Papal States). Since they were once provinces of Byzantium as part of the autonomous Ravenna Exarchate!
13:10 Actually John VIII Palaiologos visited Rome in 1423, then part of the Papal States. This made him (technically) the last "Roman Emperor" to set foot in the old capital of Rome. In 1439 He went back to Italy to meet Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence for the unification of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. John VIII Palaiologos also converted to Catholicism. Unfortunately the Church Union failed, and only little troops were sent to help in Costantinople in 1453.
Theodoric the Great definitely deserves to be an honorary Western Roman. He even appointed a prefect of Gaul at one point. I'm glad that he was included. Truly, a Goth who cared about Roman civilization more than many Romans themselves.
I think it goes to show that advanced societies rely on the mindset of the ordinary people over that of the leadership, something for us to keep in mind in our advanced but fragile societies. It didn't really matter if a true roman was ruling...the people were illiterate, the engineers, doctors, teachers, holy men, merchants, even the farmers and professional soldiers were gone by 450 AD. The chaos of the previous generation was so intense that it left a dark and ignorant world in its wake. Remember that for centuries the barbarians had been attacking civilization, pushed out themselves by barbaric and violent steppe peoples who did not value Roman culture or civilization. The fact that these people had access to sanitation, education, wealth, trade and often attacked it instead just shows that any weakness in civilization can and will lead to an entropy back to chaos and disorder. The Church itself, purposefully creating conflict between classical philosophy and scientific method and the Christian doctrine did no good in extending civilization...another thing to keep in mind. The religious will turn to mystery and "faith" over reason, rationale, and method and it will lead to dark times.
Legend says even King Arthur planned to restore the Empire, even defeating a rival claimant... But then, in classical Britannic fashion, Morded rebelled.
That's because certain aspects of Arthurian legend were influenced by actual late Roman history - the rebellions of Magnus Maximus in 383 and Constantine III in 407.
@@jamesofficial6829he could have created a state with the capacity to restore it. At the very least he created the capacity for Rome to work towards reclaiming the Mediterranean.
Not to forget Benito Mussolini from 1922 to 1943, who dreamed of refounding the Roman Empire; naming it "Third Rome". Since the first Rome had been founded by Romulus, and the second Rome (Constantinople) by Constantine the Great.
@@jamesofficial6829 Russian Tsar Ivan IV's grandmother was Sophia Palaiologina, a Byzantine Princess (her father was Thomas Palaiologos, the younger brother of the last Roman/Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos). Therefore Ivan IV would have had Byzantine ancestry. And I guess that's why he named himself the first "Tsar" (a.k.a. Caesar) of all Russia. Btw, Thomas Palaiologos escaped from the Osmans to Rome (back to the roots) where he died in 1465 .
@@jamesofficial6829 Also the Ottoman conqueror of Constantinople Mehmet the Second claimed he was the successor of the Caesars as well as Islamic caliph!
To our Host, Love From Taipei. This is my fav channel for 2 yrs now, so don't let yt algorithm beat u! Per Veritatem Vis. Your savvy voice is a must for civilized society worldwide.
He didn't actually try to restore the Western Roman Empire. The Pope simply handed out the "vacant" title of "Emperor of Rome" to him, to the chagrin of the Greco-Roman nobility in the East. Tbf, he tried to marry Empress Irene of Constantinople in an attempt to make amends but the latter was deposed before it could happen.
@@Arbelot i disagree, not only were most of his people romanii and spoke latin dialects, he made them all citicans (when christian, what was already a fact), and he tried to restore all roman features as much as he could incl. administration, christianization, architecture etc. What he could have done more to restore it what he didn't do or tried?
@@claudiussmith8798 Well, he didn't rule over the Romans. I mean yes, he did rule the city of Rome, but sadly there were no more Romans in the sense of ... well, Romans ... in the city any more.
@@athiocordatus9572 define what you mean with romans and why the romans in the frankish empire, which before him had the legal status of romans (lex salica and lex ribuarica), which spoke latin, had roman laws, traditions and culture do not count as romans. They saw themself as romans. If not by descent, language and culture what is a roman then? There have been even roman pagan temples in cologne which survived until burned down by the vikings 862. Just because (if) romans in rome changed their identity, it was pretty much alive in occupied provinces like gallia for many more centuries, where there were different social classes. in the frankish empire franks, romans and slaves. And charlemagne made all romans and slaves which were most of his population all to franks, it took a century more until people accepted the new identity as franks. And again, what could he have done more?
I think another what may have been was Clovis in 507. His conversion to Chalcedonian Christianity and his triumph at Vouille led to some people calling him Augustus (as we know from Gregory of Tours) and one throwaway line in Avitus of Vienne's letter can be interpreted as a sign that some Gallo-Romans wanted him to take the imperial title since there was now an orthodox ruler in the West as well, not just in Constantinople. But in the end, Clovis was cautious and simply accepted the consulship from Emperor Anastasius.
Fun fact: Burdunellus possibly celebrated its coronation as roman emperor in Caesaraugusta, actual Zaragoza (my city), and he reused the old roman circus in the last years of the VI century! Possibly one of the latest roman celebrations in a circus
Theodoric is my favorite Late Antiquity/Early Middle figure. He was lucky to have a rich dad and be raised among the aristocracy of Constantinople, the story of many self made kings in history, and might have seen the city stand despite the furry of Attila first hand. He united his people with his military and diplomatic skills and then used those talents to seize Italy and Spain, and married his daughters off to the Vandal and Burgundian kings, flanking Clovis and making it very hard for Constantinople to try and take back any territory. At the same time he did more to maintain Roman traditions in Italy than anyone else after Majorian, and otherwise let people just go on about how they've always gone about. Him and Charlesmagne are the only Germanic descended rulers of the first millennium who commanded enough territory to go toe to toe with the Eastern Romans or the Caliphates.
I always found these attempts very interesting also, the real last Italian attempt with the so called "Tiberius" in Tuscany always stood out to me. I use to day dream what ifs
You may also consider Arnaldo da Brescia (c. 1090 - June 1155), who briefly recreated the Roman Republic (1144-1193) following an uprising against the Papacy.
@@NapoleonCalland Because he was the muslim conqueror that finally finished off the Roman Empire in 1453 (after many centuries of struggle). He massacred the last christian inhabitants of Constatinople and killed the last legit Roman Emperor Constantine XI.
@@NapoleonCallandWhat Roman institutions did he endorse and spread? He spread Muslim (arab/persian) culture, governance and religion, and claimed to be the head of the Muslim world.
1. Theodoric the Amal (the Great) offered his troops to support Julius Nepos' cause, but the emperor rejected the offer out of fear of becoming a puppet of the leader of the Ostrogoths. Theodoric gained approval for his actions from Zeno many years later (or rather Zeno wanted to kick out wandering Ostrogoths outside of his empire), but the death of Zeno released Theodoric from the agreement to bring Italy under Eastern rule. 2. During the war between Odoacer and Theodoric, the former decided to seek approval from the Roman Senate and elevated his son Thela to the rank of "Caesar." This move was somewhat reminiscent of history (Orestes - Romulus), but by choosing a lesser title than emperor ("Augustus"/"Basileus"), Odoacer demonstrated that he was not attempting to usurp the Zeno's throne. Rather, he aimed to assert the independence of the existing realm in Italy while playing by Roman rulebook. After defeat Thela escaped but he was killed few years later.
Dear Sebastian. I've been watching your videos for a while which I really enjoy. In one of them, you say something like "bad times create strong rulers, strong rulers make good times, good times cause lazy people" something like that. I could not figure out which of your videos this was. But since these words really impressed me I was wondering if you could tell me here. Thanks a lot
Very comprehensive list but you forgot some: - After Justin II and Germanus even Maurice was planning to give his son Theodosius the western part of the empire but then Phocas came etc. - Eleutherius, exarch of Ravenna, rebelled in 619 under Heraclius and marched to Rome to be proclaimed western Roman emperor by either the pope or the senate (if it was still there) but was killed by his troops halfway. - This is more of a stretch but there was another Roman general named Paul in Visigothic Hispania around 673 who was proclaimed king of the Visigoths (but his name is clearly not Germanic), however the real king suppressed his rebellion. - Finally would you consider all the post 476 western Roman generals who rebelled either the byzantines or the Germans claimants of the western empire? Because then the list is longer: there were at least Flavius Gregorius, Gennadius and another Eleutherius, all exarchs in Africa (they were basically all usurpers at a certain point) who were basically independent during the Muslim invasions, since Constantinople couldn't defend them anymore. You could stretch it even further by considering Caecilius (known also as Aksil or Kusayla), last (?) Mauro Roman Christian king of Altava defeating and resisting the Muslim in 680s (I made a campaign for age of empires 2 about him, queen Dihya of the Aures and the Berber resistance to Islam). After this Carthage fell for good. (Even in Gaul around 585 there was a certain Eunius Mummolus, Roman general involved in the wars between the Franks so probably do not count as aspirant western emperor but he was still remembered as one of the best generals there)
Constans' plan sounds like a good plan. Centuries too late but I always thought that Rome should have moved their capital, if at all, not to the remote East but to nice operational rapid deployment naval base in Syracuse or maybe Naples or Taranto. They would still have needed a land-deployment capital in Milan or Ravenna (hence the political capital could and probably should have remained in Rome) but the idea is anyhow sound.
@@flaviusjconstantius - Sure. That's what got the Roman Empire (emphasis in "Roman" = of Rome) going. It was not the Greek or the Dacian Empire, the Syrian or the Egyptian Empire, mind you. Once Italy's centrality was abandoned (primarily by Diocletian), talking of "Roman Empire" is mere pretense and could only result, as it happened, in the decline and collapse of the West, Italy and Rome included. At least Galerius had the decendy of proposing to rename it "Dacian Empire" but Diocletian and the other tetrarchs didn't want to be that sincere, no matter that they also hated Rome, so much that Diocletian almost died of rage after finally visiting the city at the end of his rulership. Anyway, for the East even, Athens or Corinth, would have make a much more central capital. Byzantium is almost Sarmatia (and yes, I'm of sailor traditions, shipping, armies even, is generally faster and more efficient than walking). Navigare est necessere, Constantinopla non est necessere. Even the Vandals knew that much...
@@LuisAldamizthe claim that Galerius wished to rename the empire to the “Dacian Empire” is almost certainly fictitious. It is only recorded by Lactantius, a Christian and tutor of Constantine’s children. Naturally, it would make sense for him to want to malign arguably the most vicious persecutor of Christianity.
@@LucasMoldovan-hl8xq - That doesn't "malign" Galerius at all, it's rather a positive thing to say about him: too honest for politics. Also Lactantius was thus a close character to the time and events of the first Tetrarchy. For what I read, he worked in the Diocletian administration and was close to Sosianus Herocles, governor of Syria, and to the Pagan philosopher Porphyry. It was in this context where he met both Galerius and Constantine. Anyway, "si non é vero, é bene trovatto" (if it's not true, it is (at least) well told), the proposal of renaming the Empire after the radical Diocletian shift, which denatured it and made it into actually something very very different of what had been until that point, makes better sense than retaining the old name of a state that was no more but in name. To me it's almost as if the British Empire moved its capital to Bombay but retained its name... and future people, speaking maybe evolved Chinese or Swahili, would be arguing: "the British Empire did not fall until 3500, when the neo-Somali Empire conquered Bombay in a legendary siege". And there comes another and says: "but the Neo-Somalis reclaimed the title, along with the post-postmodern Mega-Maga-Caliphate and declared war on Singapore for that very reason, because there could only be one British Emperor (or Empress) on Earth" blah-blah-blah. Been there, done that... and I'm sure that Rome ended either with Diocletian or at most with the Visigothic sack or Rome of 410. All the rest is epilogue and claimants, nostalgia and pretense of legitimacy, not the real thing.
@@LuisAldamiz yeah, it wouldn’t be like that at all. Unlike the British and Indians, who shared virtually nothing in common, Romans and Greeks were pretty intertwined. There’s a reason we say “Graeco-Roman”. As Horace said, “Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio.” (Conquered Greece took captive her savage conqueror and brought her arts into rustic Latium). As for Galerius, it was certainly meant to be an insult. Lactantius clearly singles him out as the main instigator and villain of the persecutions. He also resigned his post around the time of the persecutions due to his conversion.
"Why did nobody try to restore the Western Roman Empire?" Pope Leo III, who designated the Carolingian Empire (and by extension the Holy Roman Empire) as the Western Roman Empire's spiritual successor: "Am I a joke to you?"
People keep forgetting that the Roman empire was largely built by the Republic and that the emperors only expanded to it a little at best. Empires usually don't last past more than 250 years at most so the question really is, why did Rome last as long as it did? The Roman Republic over the centuries had built and appropriated from enemies systems, skills, laws and traditions that made Rome incredibly resilient. Over time the emperors let fall into ruin or outright demolished these things as it could and often did produce rivals (competent men). Eventually Rome was unable to produce the kind of men who would put the greater good over themselves, in other words the empire was Rome's enemy.
Another really great video on one of my favorite subjects. Do you there's a great historical novel called The Little Emperors about the three British legionaries who tried to become Emperor in 407 (a third one succeeded)...
Syagrius held out in Soissons for ten years after the last emperor abdicated, until Clovis the Frank finished him off. Additionally the Byzantine emperor Justinian managed to reconquer Italy, North Africa, and part of Spain.
In 962 the German (East Frankish) King Otto the Great was crowned Emperor of the Romans in the city of Rome; same as Charlemagne in 800. All their successors were Holy Roman Emperors. The Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation) lastet until 1806 (= First Reich).The Germans (or East Franks) later revived their Empire from 1871 until 1918 (Second Reich). The Third Empire (or Third Reich) by the Nazis was even shorter. The Holy Roman Emperors were named "Kaiser" in German language, which derives from latin "Caesar"...(yes Julius ;-)
In the medieval era everyone called themselves “Roman Emperor” But now we all know that this is totally BS. The last Roman emperor in my opinion was Justinian, who is also the last proven who spoke Latin as a native language
Who will be the topic of the sequel? First, there is Charlemagne, who was crowned Emperor in Rome in 800, but his Frankish Empire declined after his death and broke apart. Second, there is Otto the Great, who was crowned Emperor in Rome in 962. This Empire did survive until 1806. Third, there is Ivan the Great, who was seen as the true successor of the Eastern Roman Emperors by many eastern christians after the fall of Constantinople. Fourth, there is Napoleon, who successfully replaced a dying empire (the HRE was dying since 1648) with a new one. But it did not last long.
The heirs of the Byzantine Empire can be considered the Venetian Republic and the Duchy of Rome (Papal States). Since they were once provinces of Byzantium as part of the autonomous Ravenna Exarchate!
@@rogelioalonzo2911 Sorry to disappoint you, but the Byzantines themselves are to blame. Since the Greeks carried out the “massacre of the Latins” in 1182, and the attack on Constantinople was carried out with the aim of returning the previous emperor to power, who was overthrown by his brother!
Belisarius could have restored Rome at least within Italy. But I think he would have ran into the same issues other great Roman general emperors. Succession, betrayal, ego. That is something I wish did happen, but it was cool to see that he was loyal too
Just some idle speculation here, but the a powerful force in the lives of Romans that pressed against the true restoration of a Western Emperor (at least one in Rome) would likely have been what was then “the Bishop of Rome”. Because while his counterparts in Constantinople, Alexandria, etc, had to answer to and effectively served at the behest of the Eastern Emperor, he became unchecked and the most uniting cultural authority in the former Western Empire. The Papacy would not have become the distinct institution it did by the Middle Ages (thus leading to the Schism) if it had been held in check by caesaropapism like the Byzantine Patriarchs.
I heard Pope Leo III crowning Charlemagne as "Imperator Romanorum" (Holy Roman Emperor) was thought to be the Pope's attempt to revive the Western Roman Empire.
Maioranus you’re a great UA-camr but you’re starting to make a lot of the same or similar videos and I think that’s why your channel isn’t doing as well. Try mixing it up a bit.
It's worth noting that very, very, very (very) technically; under both Odoacer and the Ostrogoths, at no point did Italy cease to be de jure a part of the Roman Empire-the Praetorian Prefecture of Italy continued to exist (and Theodoric the Great even re-established the Praetorian Prefecture of Gaul when he reconquered Provence from the Visigoths). And of course, the Roman Senate and the Consuls (the de jure heads of the Roman state, even then) continued under both Odoacer and the Ostrogoths. All that de jure happened in 476/480AD was that instead of there being two Emperors, there was now instead one, just like there had been before 395AD. Again, very very technically 😉 Indeed, much of Italy didn't formally stop being part of the Roman state until the Lombard invasions.
im not sure if this has been brought up but @Maiorianus_Sebastian could you please sell the shirt that you were wearing in the video it looked like a late roman tunic would love to know where to get one of those.
If that warlord prophet that united the arabs have not existed, the eastern romans will take all of the west back like Belisarius take south Dacia and iberia and all of Itally Dalmatia , And Atlas mountains.
The Roman empire didn't fall when Odoacer took over and deposed Romilus Augustulus It fell 1000 years later when Mehmet II conquered Constantinople and finally ended the Roman empire
By the forth century AD, Western Rome had come undone, and it's inner strength was disappearing. A very wise or strong person could hold Western Rome together, but when that person died, there was little political infrastructure to keep it from falling apart. The migrating barbarians could serve in the Western Roman army, but they never really integrated into the Roman people, and didn't even bother learning Latin. In the early Roman days, Etruscans, Samnites, Greeks in southern Italy, and others had the Roman franchise extended to them, and gradually became Roman themselves. This practice was probably not done in later centuries, which fragmented the people in the Western Empire.
The elephant in the room - the entity which was the most responsible for the continuation of the mission of the Roman empire was the papacy - not only did they continue with the latin language but with a lot of the Roman administrative units like the diocese and also they extended the Roman ambit to a lot of areas never under Roman rule like Scandinavia, Poland, the Baltic states and even Greenland and Iceland!!! And with popes like the aggressive Gregory VII we have the papacy even claiming precedence over Holy Roman emperors like Heinrich Iv - the continuation of Rome was the papacy and the Roman Catholic church without a doubt.
The reason why Mizizos was proclaimed emperor even tho he was supposedly against his will is because he was supported by Constans II' murderers that forced him become emperor in Sicily at first place
The Roman empire just side-stepped from politics to "religion," all roads still lead back to Rome; *"Inter Caetera" aka the "American Experiment" + Ordo Ab Chao = "Novus Ordo Seclorum."* 2 Esdras 6 9 For Esau (Dan.2:39-44) is the end of the world, *and Ya'aqov (Devarim **28:15**-68) is the beginning of it that followeth.* ~ Bereshit 15:12-14
Byzantine generalissimo Narses who succeeded Belisarius in the eastern Roman empires campaigns to reconquer Italy was 95 years of age! An eunuch of Armenian origin. Died aged 100! Was perhaps being a eunuch the key to his longevity?
If Germanus had taken up his position in the West then it is possible that Heraclius might not have stepped in to depose Phokus as he was sailing from Carthage. There is a thus good chance the east could have fallen.
But they all failed to restore the Western Roman Empire, just as the prophecy foretold. Daniel 2:41-43 And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage,c but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.
It is incredibly demoralizing to ponder how much of Romes issues were 100% down to internal political dysfunction... imagine if they had a stable system without assasinations civil wars, coups, etc....
I think we should be realistic: "Restoring" the Western Roman Empire after 476 in the frontiers of 400 is a pipe dream. Before Justinian invaded Italy, it would have been perhaps possible to "restore" it within the borders of Theoderic's kingdom and call it "Roman Empire" again,. At least it would have still been a major power, and who knows what would have been possible in the next centuries. But in the short term, not much. After Justinian conquered Italy, it was a depopulated wasteland which never again became a major European power. Calling it "Roman Empire" wouldn't have changed anything. It would have been too late.
Rome was in the church, which was sparring for leadership with local military resources. There was no need to restore an imperial court to manage the trade infrastructure machine that the Roman armies had built.
We can restore it now in form of the European Union 🇪🇺. But it would be multilingual. If there were some weird people in Europe, like Eliezer Ben Yehuda, who restored Hebrew to Israel 🇮🇱, to restore Latin 🇻🇦, at least as co-official alongside English🏴 and Greek🇬🇷 on EU administrative level! We need more such people. Also to restore Coptic among Copts 🇪🇬 , to preserve shrinking ancient languages like Quechua 🇵🇪 , Nahuatl 🇲🇽 , the Maya languages and more, and to foster Zoroastrianism in Persians 🟩⬜️🦁🟥
E' troppo complicato quello che dici! Io sarei contenta se si valorizzassero di più le lingue neolatine come lo spagnolo, l'italiano, il portoghese, il francese e il rumeno. L'inglese non è male come lingua ma non capisco perchè, anche nei commenti, non si usa di più la propria lingua. In fondo c'è la traduzione automatica.
Get 51% OFF any premium World Anvil subscription with code "MAIORIANUS" www.worldanvil.com/?c=maiorianus.
Thanks to World Anvil for sponsoring this video!
Long live maiorianus
And the most important case everyone forget... formation of European Union. It actually worked.
most romans always complained about the climate at rome during summer. Constantinople must have been healthier
@@commentfreely5443 It was more a center of major trade routes between Black and Mediterranean seas. Plus it was way more safer then Italy, what was already raided several times.
The heirs of the Byzantine Empire can be considered the Venetian Republic and the Duchy of Rome (Papal States). Since they were once provinces of Byzantium as part of the autonomous Ravenna Exarchate!
13:10 Actually John VIII Palaiologos visited Rome in 1423, then part of the Papal States. This made him (technically) the last "Roman Emperor" to set foot in the old capital of Rome. In 1439 He went back to Italy to meet Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence for the unification of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. John VIII Palaiologos also converted to Catholicism. Unfortunately the Church Union failed, and only little troops were sent to help in Costantinople in 1453.
Methinks the writing was on the wall when it all went belly up at Manzikert.
@@TheHoveHeretic 1204 more so.
The orthodox could have conceded some dogma and survived in Constantinople but instead they chose subjugation
Theodoric the Great definitely deserves to be an honorary Western Roman. He even appointed a prefect of Gaul at one point.
I'm glad that he was included. Truly, a Goth who cared about Roman civilization more than many Romans themselves.
I think it goes to show that advanced societies rely on the mindset of the ordinary people over that of the leadership, something for us to keep in mind in our advanced but fragile societies. It didn't really matter if a true roman was ruling...the people were illiterate, the engineers, doctors, teachers, holy men, merchants, even the farmers and professional soldiers were gone by 450 AD. The chaos of the previous generation was so intense that it left a dark and ignorant world in its wake. Remember that for centuries the barbarians had been attacking civilization, pushed out themselves by barbaric and violent steppe peoples who did not value Roman culture or civilization. The fact that these people had access to sanitation, education, wealth, trade and often attacked it instead just shows that any weakness in civilization can and will lead to an entropy back to chaos and disorder. The Church itself, purposefully creating conflict between classical philosophy and scientific method and the Christian doctrine did no good in extending civilization...another thing to keep in mind. The religious will turn to mystery and "faith" over reason, rationale, and method and it will lead to dark times.
Legend says even King Arthur planned to restore the Empire, even defeating a rival claimant... But then, in classical Britannic fashion, Morded rebelled.
That's because certain aspects of Arthurian legend were influenced by actual late Roman history - the rebellions of Magnus Maximus in 383 and Constantine III in 407.
Arthur was also inspired by Charlemagne with a great many of his tales spun from those of the founder of the Frankish Emperor.
Hahah King Arthur… thats a fairytale brother.
@@hanihudini98 So?
This channel is underrated
Not by me it isn't!! 🧐
Yeah, tell me about it.
I think about the roman empire unironically almost every day and your channel is a hidden gem. Really great video
The only realistic chance to restore the western Rome was with the chance Belisarius got. But unfortunately he was very loyal general
For real and how unfortunate but he probably wouldn't have succeeded anyway.
@@jamesofficial6829he could have created a state with the capacity to restore it. At the very least he created the capacity for Rome to work towards reclaiming the Mediterranean.
Not to forget Benito Mussolini from 1922 to 1943, who dreamed of refounding the Roman Empire; naming it "Third Rome".
Since the first Rome had been founded by Romulus, and the second Rome (Constantinople) by Constantine the Great.
Russia took that title of being the third Rome in Moscow.
@@jamesofficial6829
One of history's biggest LARPs
@@jamesofficial6829 Russian Tsar Ivan IV's grandmother was Sophia Palaiologina, a Byzantine Princess (her father was
Thomas Palaiologos, the younger brother of the last Roman/Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos). Therefore Ivan IV would have had Byzantine ancestry. And I guess that's why he named himself the first "Tsar" (a.k.a. Caesar) of all Russia. Btw, Thomas Palaiologos escaped from the Osmans to Rome (back to the roots) where he died in 1465 .
@@jamesofficial6829 Also the Ottoman conqueror of Constantinople Mehmet the Second claimed he was the successor of the Caesars as well as Islamic caliph!
Mussolini: I proclaim the restoration of Third Rome...
Russian Empire: 😒
To our Host, Love From Taipei. This is my fav channel for 2 yrs now, so don't let yt algorithm beat u! Per Veritatem Vis. Your savvy voice is a must for civilized society worldwide.
Why did nobody try to restore the roman empire?
Charlemagne:😐
Legitimately the basis for the centuries-long rivalry between France and Germany
He didn't actually try to restore the Western Roman Empire. The Pope simply handed out the "vacant" title of "Emperor of Rome" to him, to the chagrin of the Greco-Roman nobility in the East.
Tbf, he tried to marry Empress Irene of Constantinople in an attempt to make amends but the latter was deposed before it could happen.
@@Arbelot i disagree, not only were most of his people romanii and spoke latin dialects, he made them all citicans (when christian, what was already a fact), and he tried to restore all roman features as much as he could incl. administration, christianization, architecture etc. What he could have done more to restore it what he didn't do or tried?
@@claudiussmith8798 Well, he didn't rule over the Romans. I mean yes, he did rule the city of Rome, but sadly there were no more Romans in the sense of ... well, Romans ... in the city any more.
@@athiocordatus9572 define what you mean with romans and why the romans in the frankish empire, which before him had the legal status of romans (lex salica and lex ribuarica), which spoke latin, had roman laws, traditions and culture do not count as romans. They saw themself as romans. If not by descent, language and culture what is a roman then? There have been even roman pagan temples in cologne which survived until burned down by the vikings 862. Just because (if) romans in rome changed their identity, it was pretty much alive in occupied provinces like gallia for many more centuries, where there were different social classes. in the frankish empire franks, romans and slaves. And charlemagne made all romans and slaves which were most of his population all to franks, it took a century more until people accepted the new identity as franks. And again, what could he have done more?
I think another what may have been was Clovis in 507. His conversion to Chalcedonian Christianity and his triumph at Vouille led to some people calling him Augustus (as we know from Gregory of Tours) and one throwaway line in Avitus of Vienne's letter can be interpreted as a sign that some Gallo-Romans wanted him to take the imperial title since there was now an orthodox ruler in the West as well, not just in Constantinople. But in the end, Clovis was cautious and simply accepted the consulship from Emperor Anastasius.
Fun fact: Burdunellus possibly celebrated its coronation as roman emperor in Caesaraugusta, actual Zaragoza (my city), and he reused the old roman circus in the last years of the VI century! Possibly one of the latest roman celebrations in a circus
Was also curious about him when I came across him. Too bad not enough info on him.
Fun fact: your city was for 1000 years in muslim slavery and modern Spainards dont have any connections with BuRdUnELluS as if he existed
Waw amazing being part of this
This is literally my favorite Rome / Late Antiquity channel on YT
Theodoric is my favorite Late Antiquity/Early Middle figure. He was lucky to have a rich dad and be raised among the aristocracy of Constantinople, the story of many self made kings in history, and might have seen the city stand despite the furry of Attila first hand. He united his people with his military and diplomatic skills and then used those talents to seize Italy and Spain, and married his daughters off to the Vandal and Burgundian kings, flanking Clovis and making it very hard for Constantinople to try and take back any territory. At the same time he did more to maintain Roman traditions in Italy than anyone else after Majorian, and otherwise let people just go on about how they've always gone about. Him and Charlesmagne are the only Germanic descended rulers of the first millennium who commanded enough territory to go toe to toe with the Eastern Romans or the Caliphates.
Barbarians: Hi, we are here to restore you!!!
WRE: Umm right... (Oh, man...)
I always found these attempts very interesting also, the real last Italian attempt with the so called "Tiberius" in Tuscany always stood out to me. I use to day dream what ifs
Haven’t heard of him. Any links?
Glad you brought in Theoderic the Great. Very overlooked ruler, but probably the most successful of his time ironically.
long live maiorianus
The reason western Roman empire didn't exist was because the eastern Roman empire didn't want it to exist.
You may also consider Arnaldo da Brescia (c. 1090 - June 1155), who briefly recreated the Roman Republic (1144-1193) following an uprising against the Papacy.
Much awaited, much appreciated looking forward to excellent insights as always from you.
Yeah, would love to see your take on Charlesmagne. And on Kaisers and Tsars... some things do not ever seem to go away.
Ironically after conquering Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mehmet II proclaimed himself Kayser-i Rûm (Caesar of Rome)
Why ''ironically''?
🦁☀️🐝⚡🦅⚡🐝☀️🦁
@@NapoleonCalland
Because he was the muslim conqueror that finally finished off the Roman Empire in 1453 (after many centuries of struggle). He massacred the last christian inhabitants of Constatinople and killed the last legit Roman Emperor Constantine XI.
@@NapoleonCallandWhat Roman institutions did he endorse and spread? He spread Muslim (arab/persian) culture, governance and religion, and claimed to be the head of the Muslim world.
he didnt- but he did call himself kayser-i Rum@@columodonnell9212
Nice vid. Nice to listen to as well. Thanks
Majorian tried his best to restore the empire. Probably the only competent emperor in the final 100 years of the west.
Theodosius was competent. Unfortunately, his two incompetent sons started the downward spiral of the West. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
1. Theodoric the Amal (the Great) offered his troops to support Julius Nepos' cause, but the emperor rejected the offer out of fear of becoming a puppet of the leader of the Ostrogoths. Theodoric gained approval for his actions from Zeno many years later (or rather Zeno wanted to kick out wandering Ostrogoths outside of his empire), but the death of Zeno released Theodoric from the agreement to bring Italy under Eastern rule.
2. During the war between Odoacer and Theodoric, the former decided to seek approval from the Roman Senate and elevated his son Thela to the rank of "Caesar." This move was somewhat reminiscent of history (Orestes - Romulus), but by choosing a lesser title than emperor ("Augustus"/"Basileus"), Odoacer demonstrated that he was not attempting to usurp the Zeno's throne. Rather, he aimed to assert the independence of the existing realm in Italy while playing by Roman rulebook. After defeat Thela escaped but he was killed few years later.
thought that said "Theodoric the Anal" at first. Historically difficult meticulous micromanager
I am not someone who could use this videos sponsor but it was an interesting idea I'd never heard of...
"Good people will always be taken advtange of, so carry an extra blade"
Dear Sebastian. I've been watching your videos for a while which I really enjoy. In one of them, you say something like "bad times create strong rulers, strong rulers make good times, good times cause lazy people" something like that. I could not figure out which of your videos this was. But since these words really impressed me I was wondering if you could tell me here. Thanks a lot
Mezezius and even Tiberius Petasius (there's an extremely rare solidus on acsearch) actually stuck coinage in their names.
Very comprehensive list but you forgot some:
- After Justin II and Germanus even Maurice was planning to give his son Theodosius the western part of the empire but then Phocas came etc.
- Eleutherius, exarch of Ravenna, rebelled in 619 under Heraclius and marched to Rome to be proclaimed western Roman emperor by either the pope or the senate (if it was still there) but was killed by his troops halfway.
- This is more of a stretch but there was another Roman general named Paul in Visigothic Hispania around 673 who was proclaimed king of the Visigoths (but his name is clearly not Germanic), however the real king suppressed his rebellion.
- Finally would you consider all the post 476 western Roman generals who rebelled either the byzantines or the Germans claimants of the western empire? Because then the list is longer: there were at least Flavius Gregorius, Gennadius and another Eleutherius, all exarchs in Africa (they were basically all usurpers at a certain point) who were basically independent during the Muslim invasions, since Constantinople couldn't defend them anymore.
You could stretch it even further by considering Caecilius (known also as Aksil or Kusayla), last (?) Mauro Roman Christian king of Altava defeating and resisting the Muslim in 680s (I made a campaign for age of empires 2 about him, queen Dihya of the Aures and the Berber resistance to Islam). After this Carthage fell for good.
(Even in Gaul around 585 there was a certain Eunius Mummolus, Roman general involved in the wars between the Franks so probably do not count as aspirant western emperor but he was still remembered as one of the best generals there)
Post-classical European history is essentially just a bunch of Romeaboos trying to restore the glory of Rome with varying degrees of success.
This is really well done.
You forgot the usurper Eleutherius, who even thought of being legitimised by the Pope
RIP Majorian.
Another great video! Thank you for all the great content!
Constans' plan sounds like a good plan. Centuries too late but I always thought that Rome should have moved their capital, if at all, not to the remote East but to nice operational rapid deployment naval base in Syracuse or maybe Naples or Taranto. They would still have needed a land-deployment capital in Milan or Ravenna (hence the political capital could and probably should have remained in Rome) but the idea is anyhow sound.
The “remote East” contained 2/3 of the population and was vastly wealthier and more urbanized.
@@flaviusjconstantius - Sure. That's what got the Roman Empire (emphasis in "Roman" = of Rome) going. It was not the Greek or the Dacian Empire, the Syrian or the Egyptian Empire, mind you. Once Italy's centrality was abandoned (primarily by Diocletian), talking of "Roman Empire" is mere pretense and could only result, as it happened, in the decline and collapse of the West, Italy and Rome included. At least Galerius had the decendy of proposing to rename it "Dacian Empire" but Diocletian and the other tetrarchs didn't want to be that sincere, no matter that they also hated Rome, so much that Diocletian almost died of rage after finally visiting the city at the end of his rulership.
Anyway, for the East even, Athens or Corinth, would have make a much more central capital. Byzantium is almost Sarmatia (and yes, I'm of sailor traditions, shipping, armies even, is generally faster and more efficient than walking). Navigare est necessere, Constantinopla non est necessere. Even the Vandals knew that much...
@@LuisAldamizthe claim that Galerius wished to rename the empire to the “Dacian Empire” is almost certainly fictitious. It is only recorded by Lactantius, a Christian and tutor of Constantine’s children. Naturally, it would make sense for him to want to malign arguably the most vicious persecutor of Christianity.
@@LucasMoldovan-hl8xq - That doesn't "malign" Galerius at all, it's rather a positive thing to say about him: too honest for politics. Also Lactantius was thus a close character to the time and events of the first Tetrarchy. For what I read, he worked in the Diocletian administration and was close to Sosianus Herocles, governor of Syria, and to the Pagan philosopher Porphyry. It was in this context where he met both Galerius and Constantine.
Anyway, "si non é vero, é bene trovatto" (if it's not true, it is (at least) well told), the proposal of renaming the Empire after the radical Diocletian shift, which denatured it and made it into actually something very very different of what had been until that point, makes better sense than retaining the old name of a state that was no more but in name.
To me it's almost as if the British Empire moved its capital to Bombay but retained its name... and future people, speaking maybe evolved Chinese or Swahili, would be arguing: "the British Empire did not fall until 3500, when the neo-Somali Empire conquered Bombay in a legendary siege". And there comes another and says: "but the Neo-Somalis reclaimed the title, along with the post-postmodern Mega-Maga-Caliphate and declared war on Singapore for that very reason, because there could only be one British Emperor (or Empress) on Earth" blah-blah-blah. Been there, done that... and I'm sure that Rome ended either with Diocletian or at most with the Visigothic sack or Rome of 410. All the rest is epilogue and claimants, nostalgia and pretense of legitimacy, not the real thing.
@@LuisAldamiz yeah, it wouldn’t be like that at all. Unlike the British and Indians, who shared virtually nothing in common, Romans and Greeks were pretty intertwined. There’s a reason we say “Graeco-Roman”. As Horace said, “Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio.” (Conquered Greece took captive her savage conqueror and brought her arts into rustic Latium). As for Galerius, it was certainly meant to be an insult. Lactantius clearly singles him out as the main instigator and villain of the persecutions. He also resigned his post around the time of the persecutions due to his conversion.
"Why did nobody try to restore the Western Roman Empire?"
Pope Leo III, who designated the Carolingian Empire (and by extension the Holy Roman Empire) as the Western Roman Empire's spiritual successor: "Am I a joke to you?"
They are a big joke, and a very bad one at that
I was always wondering if the romans under germanic rule rebelled.thank you
The Kings of Spain also bought the title of Roman Emperor from the Paleologos after they got kicked out by the Turks
and they beat the Ottomans in the battle of lepanto
People keep forgetting that the Roman empire was largely built by the Republic and that the emperors only expanded to it a little at best.
Empires usually don't last past more than 250 years at most so the question really is, why did Rome last as long as it did?
The Roman Republic over the centuries had built and appropriated from enemies systems, skills, laws and traditions that made Rome incredibly resilient.
Over time the emperors let fall into ruin or outright demolished these things as it could and often did produce rivals (competent men).
Eventually Rome was unable to produce the kind of men who would put the greater good over themselves, in other words the empire was Rome's enemy.
Amazing channel mate!❤
Great video! I'm excited for the possibility of videos on the HRE in the future
Another really great video on one of my favorite subjects. Do you there's a great historical novel called The Little Emperors about the three British legionaries who tried to become Emperor in 407 (a third one succeeded)...
Syagrius held out in Soissons for ten years after the last emperor abdicated, until Clovis the Frank finished him off. Additionally the Byzantine emperor Justinian managed to reconquer Italy, North Africa, and part of Spain.
Empires morph from physical to abstract. Rome to the catholic papacy. The British became financial hegemony.
In 962 the German (East Frankish) King Otto the Great was crowned Emperor of the Romans in the city of Rome; same as Charlemagne in 800. All their successors were Holy Roman Emperors. The Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation) lastet until 1806 (= First Reich).The Germans (or East Franks) later revived their Empire from 1871 until 1918 (Second Reich). The Third Empire (or Third Reich) by the Nazis was even shorter. The Holy Roman Emperors were named "Kaiser" in German language, which derives from latin "Caesar"...(yes Julius ;-)
In the medieval era everyone called themselves “Roman Emperor” But now we all know that this is totally BS. The last Roman emperor in my opinion was Justinian, who is also the last proven who spoke Latin as a native language
Who will be the topic of the sequel?
First, there is Charlemagne, who was crowned Emperor in Rome in 800, but his Frankish Empire declined after his death and broke apart.
Second, there is Otto the Great, who was crowned Emperor in Rome in 962. This Empire did survive until 1806.
Third, there is Ivan the Great, who was seen as the true successor of the Eastern Roman Emperors by many eastern christians after the fall of Constantinople.
Fourth, there is Napoleon, who successfully replaced a dying empire (the HRE was dying since 1648) with a new one. But it did not last long.
Great video. I was unaware of these attempts by westerners to re-establish Roman power in the west.
Too bad they didn't have Giuseppe Garibaldi, he would have restored the western empire. lol. Everyone loves Giuseppe Garibaldi !!
The heirs of the Byzantine Empire can be considered the Venetian Republic and the Duchy of Rome (Papal States). Since they were once provinces of Byzantium as part of the autonomous Ravenna Exarchate!
No, the Venetians sacked Constantinople in 1204. Even if their leaders title was Roman imperial. They were rotten bourgeois
@@rogelioalonzo2911 Sorry to disappoint you, but the Byzantines themselves are to blame. Since the Greeks carried out the “massacre of the Latins” in 1182, and the attack on Constantinople was carried out with the aim of returning the previous emperor to power, who was overthrown by his brother!
@@РимскийОрелCareful. You'll hurt his feelings with facts.
@@РимскийОрел I will accept all western emperor except venice
Hello can you make a video on aurelian.
Belisarius could have restored Rome at least within Italy. But I think he would have ran into the same issues other great Roman general emperors. Succession, betrayal, ego. That is something I wish did happen, but it was cool to see that he was loyal too
I feel like the reason why Germanus stepped down as Western Emperor is mainly because he knew how hard of a job as Caesar/emperor is
Your life expactancy would certainly look a little worse with that job.
Just some idle speculation here, but the a powerful force in the lives of Romans that pressed against the true restoration of a Western Emperor (at least one in Rome) would likely have been what was then “the Bishop of Rome”. Because while his counterparts in Constantinople, Alexandria, etc, had to answer to and effectively served at the behest of the Eastern Emperor, he became unchecked and the most uniting cultural authority in the former Western Empire. The Papacy would not have become the distinct institution it did by the Middle Ages (thus leading to the Schism) if it had been held in check by caesaropapism like the Byzantine Patriarchs.
I heard Pope Leo III crowning Charlemagne as "Imperator Romanorum" (Holy Roman Emperor) was thought to be the Pope's attempt to revive the Western Roman Empire.
Maioranus you’re a great UA-camr but you’re starting to make a lot of the same or similar videos and I think that’s why your channel isn’t doing as well. Try mixing it up a bit.
We need a video of "reconquest of egypt and the soap bucket murder" or did i missed it?
It's worth noting that very, very, very (very) technically; under both Odoacer and the Ostrogoths, at no point did Italy cease to be de jure a part of the Roman Empire-the Praetorian Prefecture of Italy continued to exist (and Theodoric the Great even re-established the Praetorian Prefecture of Gaul when he reconquered Provence from the Visigoths). And of course, the Roman Senate and the Consuls (the de jure heads of the Roman state, even then) continued under both Odoacer and the Ostrogoths.
All that de jure happened in 476/480AD was that instead of there being two Emperors, there was now instead one, just like there had been before 395AD.
Again, very very technically 😉
Indeed, much of Italy didn't formally stop being part of the Roman state until the Lombard invasions.
Here come thee boats, the taxes, the vaccines, the climate saving promises, all the the madness over again
im not sure if this has been brought up but @Maiorianus_Sebastian could you please sell the shirt that you were wearing in the video it looked like a late roman tunic would love to know where to get one of those.
If that warlord prophet that united the arabs have not existed, the eastern romans will take all of the west back like Belisarius take south Dacia and iberia and all of Itally Dalmatia , And Atlas mountains.
Severely sibilant sonics this time, major.
Nice segue to the ad. 😂
The Roman empire didn't fall when Odoacer took over and deposed Romilus Augustulus
It fell 1000 years later when Mehmet II conquered Constantinople and finally ended the Roman empire
On the politology of the Restoratio Imperii I firmly recommend Schwerpunkt
Under 2 hour gang
Good job mate
By the forth century AD, Western Rome had come undone, and it's inner strength was disappearing. A very wise or strong person could hold Western Rome together, but when that person died, there was little political infrastructure to keep it from falling apart. The migrating barbarians could serve in the Western Roman army, but they never really integrated into the Roman people, and didn't even bother learning Latin.
In the early Roman days, Etruscans, Samnites, Greeks in southern Italy, and others had the Roman franchise extended to them, and gradually became Roman themselves. This practice was probably not done in later centuries, which fragmented the people in the Western Empire.
Rome is not dead. It lives on in our hearts. And yes we gonna restore it ma bois.
Contrary to popular belief.. the Roman Empire went out kicking and screaming
Maybe they all went amess?
The elephant in the room - the entity which was the most responsible for the continuation of the mission of the Roman empire was the papacy - not only did they continue with the latin language but with a lot of the Roman administrative units like the diocese and also they extended the Roman ambit to a lot of areas never under Roman rule like Scandinavia, Poland, the Baltic states and even Greenland and Iceland!!! And with popes like the aggressive Gregory VII we have the papacy even claiming precedence over Holy Roman emperors like Heinrich Iv - the continuation of Rome was the papacy and the Roman Catholic church without a doubt.
@Maiorianus_Sebastian
In 1168 Eastern Roman Emperor Manuel I. was almost crowned Emperor of the West by Pope Alexander III.
The reason why Mizizos was proclaimed emperor even tho he was supposedly against his will is because he was supported by Constans II' murderers that forced him become emperor in Sicily at first place
The Roman empire just side-stepped from politics to "religion," all roads still lead back to Rome;
*"Inter Caetera" aka the "American Experiment" + Ordo Ab Chao = "Novus Ordo Seclorum."*
2 Esdras 6
9 For Esau (Dan.2:39-44) is the end of the world, *and Ya'aqov (Devarim **28:15**-68) is the beginning of it that followeth.* ~ Bereshit 15:12-14
Magnificent Vídeo.
Byzantine generalissimo Narses who succeeded Belisarius in the eastern Roman empires campaigns to reconquer Italy was 95 years of age! An eunuch of Armenian origin. Died aged 100! Was perhaps being a eunuch the key to his longevity?
Nobody has heard of the Emperor Justinian then?
Between Maiorianus and Julius Nepos, which one has more chance of restoring the Western Roman Empire?
Majoran
MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION: Why did no-one try to restore the REPUBLIC? That was the true glory of Rome. Augustus jumped the shark.
EuropaUniversalis 4 pc game give a chance to every player of this game... to restore The Roman Empire...
If Germanus had taken up his position in the West then it is possible that Heraclius might not have stepped in to depose Phokus as he was sailing from Carthage. There is a thus good chance the east could have fallen.
But they all failed to restore the Western Roman Empire, just as the prophecy foretold.
Daniel 2:41-43 And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage,c but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.
It is incredibly demoralizing to ponder how much of Romes issues were 100% down to internal political dysfunction... imagine if they had a stable system without assasinations civil wars, coups, etc....
Ricimer GANG W
I think we should be realistic: "Restoring" the Western Roman Empire after 476 in the frontiers of 400 is a pipe dream.
Before Justinian invaded Italy, it would have been perhaps possible to "restore" it within the borders of Theoderic's kingdom and call it "Roman Empire" again,.
At least it would have still been a major power, and who knows what would have been possible in the next centuries. But in the short term, not much.
After Justinian conquered Italy, it was a depopulated wasteland which never again became a major European power. Calling it "Roman Empire" wouldn't have changed anything. It would have been too late.
There was this little known guy called Charlemagne
I think the last Italian to try and make a Roman Empire was Mussolini. Didn't work so well for him.
Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitl…
1 reason, bankers
Charlemagne had the chance, but religion got in the way. Shame
*Vsauce theme at background*
I restored the Roman Empire once, but then I changed my mind.
I tried to restore the Roman Empire but OEM parts were no longer available.
Then another barbarian tribe would demand a third of Italy, and there were not enough Roman troops to purge the peninsula of barbarians by then.
Rome was in the church, which was sparring for leadership with local military resources. There was no need to restore an imperial court to manage the trade infrastructure machine that the Roman armies had built.
the last attempt was in the 1940s by a certain Italian dictator and his Austrian friend.
We can restore it now in form of the European Union 🇪🇺. But it would be multilingual. If there were some weird people in Europe, like Eliezer Ben Yehuda, who restored Hebrew to Israel 🇮🇱, to restore Latin 🇻🇦, at least as co-official alongside English🏴 and Greek🇬🇷 on EU administrative level! We need more such people. Also to restore Coptic among Copts 🇪🇬 , to preserve shrinking ancient languages like Quechua 🇵🇪 , Nahuatl 🇲🇽 , the Maya languages and more, and to foster Zoroastrianism in Persians 🟩⬜️🦁🟥
E' troppo complicato quello che dici! Io sarei contenta se si valorizzassero di più le lingue neolatine come lo spagnolo, l'italiano, il portoghese, il francese e il rumeno. L'inglese non è male come lingua ma non capisco perchè, anche nei commenti, non si usa di più la propria lingua. In fondo c'è la traduzione automatica.
Can you make a video replying to Uberboyos theory that the decline of the Roman Empire & rise of Christianity came from demographic changes