Him and Caesar are the only Romans who had to conquer Rome to prevent a permanent split while solving several economic and administrative issues. They both did it in 5 years and grew up during the most dangerous times of their respective eras, and they were both killed out of fear.
Discovered this channel ten years after it was made and when I heard "award winning" I got so happy good for everyone involved wish I could've voted for you too
@@Luchaliterature this isn't the actual person who made the podcast. The creators name is Mike Duncan. If you search for the real podcast on another platform it might have the transcriptions or subtitles.
If anyone wants a 12 hour History of Rome episode about Sulla/Marius/Gracii brothers, Mike Duncan wrote a book called “The Storm Before the Storm.” He even starts and ends the audiobook with the same GarageBand melody. Excellent stuff.
What I've grown to love the most about this podcast is the bringing out of the biases at the time of the people who wrote the history. I watch many things regarding history and most of the time it's told as it's written without context so I'm very impressed with how comprehensive and thoughtful the scripting is of the podcast
It's a testament to Duncan's ability to tell this story that he's simultaneously able to grip you in its dramas while still being able to pull back the listener and go "Now, we don't have a lot of records here, and most of this stuff was written by stuffy senators. We have some possibilities here, nonetheless, Aurelian is about to kick some ass."
The age old question for emperors all over has always been whether to keep your army close to you or send them where they are actually needed and hopefully generals don't overthrow you.
Impossible dilemma without an insane cult of personality. The death of empires is the struggle of succession. Unless the ruling elite are incentivized to force a meritocracy, no empire is safe from one claimant or another having the resources and backing to attempt a coup. When the system is invested in one individual it's only as strong as that individual. A clear chain of command/succession that is stronger than any individual is the really the only countermeasure. In the modern world the United States executes this as best as you can. You'll have to kill 25+ specific individuals to really ensure a clear disruption of leadership and even if you took out DC and caught 99% of all national elected officials you still have 50 governors who have their own backups and infastructure.
It's noteworthy that there was an episode of global cooling in the 3rd Century AD. This gives rise to crop failures, paroxysmal outbreaks of disease, and population displacement.
Yes the climate change advocates refuse to realize that there are cyclic temperature changes over time. The global corporations just want to find new ways of squeezing money out of people.
Charles Wood My original comment is based on climate research. The onset of the Bubonic Plague in the 14th Century was preceded by a sudden period of global cooling.
In just a little over one presidential term, Aurelian will now conquer more than Caesar and Pompey, combined. After the worst catastrophe in the history of the empire.
Of all the potential great leaders who was killed for stupid reasons, Probus is the most detrimental of all , having the legions working at bettering the infrastructures again could only hint to what the man had in mind.
Someone should make a chart that shows the line of emperors, how long they survived in office, and how they were killed. Until I started listening to these excellent podcasts I had no idea how bad Rome was in terms of the high number of assassinations and coups
Literally. The last 10 episodes are serious of assinations and betrayals. It's like hearing the same thing over and over. Praetorian over throws emporeor. Hail new emperor. Betray him. Again and again
Wow got this far in the series, without realising I never actually said thank you for the amazing content, it clearly took a LOT of effort to make. Also I see that you are active in the comments too. I guess that'll be a double kudos right there...
it's not the author active but the guy who collected Mike Duncan's episodes into longer pieces. The author has finished a podcast about revolutions and is currenlty planning something new as far as i know.
I really like these a lot, thanks so much for putting them up. I thought however that there were some arguments against the 1:1 association between Christmas and Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or that at least there's more nuance to the relationship rather than its having been an outright co-option.
Yes, the yearly festivals around the winter solstice are pretty much universal with a history going back thousands of years. The Mass of Christ was just another successor in a long line of such festivals.
Thanks for your reply! I've started listening to episodes on your podcast page because I'm all caught up with my binge-listening on YT -- just getting to Constantine. Josephus and Revolutions look really fascinating too -- you've certainly made the internet a more intellectually rich place, no mean feat considering some of the dross out there!
I have heard of Aurelian (r. 270-75), but I have never heard of Sandy Koufax (1935-). I actually had to look Koufax up so I would spell that baseball player's surname properly. Sorry, I don't know anything about baseball, but suffice it to say that I have learned that Koufax was the Aurelian of baseball, although now I feel like I am denying a competent Roman emperor the respect he deserves.
My top 5 Imperator's of Roma: 1. Traianus AD117 2. Augustus AD14 3. Claudius AD54 4. Marcus Arellius AD180 5. Aurellianus AD275 And of course Augustus Mussolini AD 1,944 :) I did not base my favs. mostly on long reign and besr couriers but on hiw i personally saw their personality and personal achievements and how those 2 components effected the Empire in a Positive way. Trajan was an jack of all trades Goos ar all things emperor. and general and Roman though being from spain and ruling at romes expasion hight(im a sucker for peak reign rulers) "Darius I eshkteet!" Augustus was a humorous and badass ruler as well as smart and compassionate Claudius strait out proved the Julio Claudians and Rome and history wrong and annexed most of the territories that make rome look as shmexy and huge as it did and was a player on the miss me with that gay shit tip. no offence towards gays but in Ancient Rome heterosexuality was a feat of its own. also brought Rome out of 2 shitty tyrants before him, though you know. NERO. any way he was the only GOOD Julio Claudian besides Augustus and being the 2nd longest dynasty of Rome i think thats saying something. But when compared to pervs psychopaths and incompatant spoiled vain idiots before and after it might not be. But I put Claudius right their nxt to Augustus in the dynasties good rulers there fore he makes my list cuz Augustus obiously does. Marcus was Wise Smart had a seemingly peaceful and disciplined mind set and vibe. He also could adapt easily going from scoller to effective general with virtually no military background. Not to mentioned being able to keep him party loving brother from messing to much things up. With a reign plagued by disease war floods ect. Arellius stayed strong and made sure the empire did as well and i commend him for that. Also for being the glo guy he is continued the trend of great rulers poping up since Nirva. But you know. COMMODUS. Aurellianus the unconquered reunified the empire and began the end of the 2nd century crisis he's really my what ifs on the list cuz i can only imagine what cool things he would have done say he ruled another decade or so Rome's history i feel would be very different and i personally feel he himself would have ended the 3d century crisis probably by 280 or even before. defenatly by 285 and would have gone down in history as even more of a badass. Props tp the reunifire!
And of course Augustus Mussolini lets not forget him. Conquered all of the african continent and reclaimed all of the land once held by the Ancient Roman Empire. Made Hitler his bitch and had him give up all Anceint Roman territory he held claim to. He's restarted the Dominate of Rome but bigger and better. Was completely anti-fanciest but a nit nationalist, I meam common you restarted the Roman Empire how could you not be a little Roman prideful. He's basically Augustus II but better considering his colonial annexation of all Africa and actually making the germans his bitch and NOT beating around the bush when it came to striping senatorial power he just throw democracy and republicanism right out the door. Avgvstvs Mvssolini the great. Mussolini's wet dream. jokes.
I like Marcus Aurelius as well but he did persecute the Christians so he would lose points with me for that. And I also like how Claudius proved everyone wrong. They more or less mocked him as being simple merely because he wasn't corrupt like them.
Claudius should be removed from the list and replaced by Diocletian or Majorian. Also Aurelian should be moved to to third. Claudius I was a good emperor, but he doesn’t stand up to the other emperors on the list, but that’s just my opinion.
1. Augustus 2. Trajan 3. Marcus Aurelius 4. Diocletian 5. Aurelian I'd say that's my favourites list but honestly it depends what mood I'm in. Ans there's a bunch of other emperors I find really cool such as Vespasian, Claudius and Septimius Severus.
Thanks. I'm not really on any schedule so I'm not bound to any strict timeline, but I have fallen behind a bit lately. We'll get caught up though and we're getting close to the home stretch. :)
I heard they now blame the burning of the library of Alexandria on Julius Ceasar? But i also heard the Muslims did it during their conquest.? This was the first time i heard of Aurelian doing it. Any one who may have a more central answer?
The library of alexandria is the true grestest loss to the advance of civilisation. It was a collection of buildings that were are unsure of what they looked like beyond noted general ptolomey helleninistic taste, sadly we have an idea of what we lost just to quotes from authors that survived in late antiquity in other centers of the world. We lost everything with just enough left in secondary sources to rediscover them from the renaissance to the current day. The biggest contribution was leanardo de vinci. The biggest enemy is they politics of the papacy. But noting the powerful nature of individual abbeys i acknowledge the persistent slavish preservation of ancient manuscripts they miggt not fully understand but they knew the contents were valuable. The concept of the virtous pagan saved much. There is one other destruction copydot. Missed. The chistian uprising and the cruel murder of a lost genius in the 400s. See the film agora for a fairly good Hollywood version. Its rarely covered by western historians but it is to be acknowledged the greatest debt in the of maintaince of what we saved to tbe byzantine empire. It acted as a buffer that stood far longer than anyone had a riggt to expect against the various muslim powers and the debauched treachery of the first crusade and the next 12 crusades.
Sol Invictus was not "celebrated" on December 25th. We don't know if or what time of year, or how it may or may not have been celebrated. There are many different dates associated with "Sol Invictus." This is a popular misconception. The reason December 25th is one of the dates associated with Sol Invictus is from a mid 4th century source referring to a 3rd century temple to Sol Invictus being built, then dedicated on December 25th. There are other dates associated with celebrating Sol Invictus in July, August, and September. December 25th is referenced as Christ's date of birth a century before this time, around the year 200.
I did a little reading on Queen Zenobia . And I feel bad for her. From what I read about her , Queen Zenobia was a first class enlightened monarch. Her big thing that made her so good a queen, was that she made Palmyra a sanctuary country , where there was religious toleration in her realms. If you ask me, Queen Zenobia was centuries ahead of her time. Even to this day, Queen Zenobia is a very much revered historical figure in modern day Syria.
I dunno. She clearly wasn't good enough to beat Aurelian. No amount of enlightenment on the Empress's part could counter Aurelian's sheer military prowess. And I don't know what you mean by "centuries ahead of her time". Imperial Rome was notorious for its religious diversity. Have you ever looked up just how many different deities were worshiped in the City of Rome? They practically stole Greece's entire pantheon and simply gave them new names because they found Rome's native gods to be bland by comparison. Ironically, it wasn't till Christianity was made Rome's official religion in the late fourth century by Theodosius I that the persecution began🤔.
From 1977 to 1990, the Central Bank of Syria ran a series of 100-pound (lira) banknotes honouring Queen Zenobia, and as inflation increased, they moved her to the 500-lira bill there. It was completely justified.
The author is a bit biased towards Zenobia, considering how utterly defeated she was ultimately and how little success she achieved compared to her husband.
The reason that Christmas is celebrated on December 25th is because Jesus was crucified on March 25th. Christians believe Christ was conceived on the same day he was crucified, March 25th. So 9 months after March 25th is December.
Will Durant suggested in his book "Caesar and Christ" that a contributing factor to the steady Roman decline in the West in particular was the issue of birth rates. Rich Italian upper class ladies were becoming too independent and vain to produce the next generation of soldiers for the empire, while the Germans, with improved methods of agriculture picked up from civilization, were breeding like rabbits. Poor blue eyed whites out breeding and invading the territories of spoiled, wealthy generally darker skinned Latinos who's women were too cool to have babies. A situation which is now somewhat reversed in our own epoch and hemisphere.
Oh boy how wrong you are. Rome didn’t lose its masculine values, it indulged it them to the point where it destroyed them. Rome would have never fallen if it wasn’t engaged in its series of endless civil wars and attempted usurpations against itself. When Alaric sacked Rome, the city wasn’t relieved because the army was off trying to quell another usurper emperor
Most of the men didn't become soldiers because Diocletian reforms locked people into family profession (starting proto-feudalism) also the western empire had a quarter of the wealth and a quarter of the population so if anything, the western empire had more soldiers than it could actually support. Also, soldiers were compensated with a plot of land that was supplied by the state at the end of their 20 year enlistment. Land that had to be acquired from conquered peoples and expansion which Rome hadn't done since the reign of Trajan. Rome fell because it was the apex of a successful ancient civilization that grew in power from conquests, Rome simply ran out of people and land worth conquering but couldn't rid itself of the state aparatus that required a constant influx of wealth to support itself
This guy sometimes jumps to conclusions with unproven theories, there is no direct evidence that Christmas was placed in 25 December because of the Sol Invictus religion.
The Christ Mass was absolutely placed on the 25th corresponding to the Roman Saturnalia three days after yule when the sun came back to life again in the exact same way that the church placed Michael Mass on February 1st to correspond to Imbolg and Halloween on Samhain, November 1st. Easter would have been placed on the equinox in March but they didn't want to relate directly to the Jewish Passover so they moved it to the next New Moon after it.
Any scholarly source on that though? Festivities coincinding around the Winter solstice is no sign of direct borrowing and there is no conclusive evidence Christian took the exact date either. www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1t7hbg/what_are_the_historic_facts_about_december_25th/ www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gtzc8/ive_often_heard_that_the_date_many_christians/
Direct evidence no, but if you look at it from a practicality term, replacing one holiday with another that people are already been used to for thousands of years when trying to enforce a new state religion makes the most sense
@@lolwutyoumad Sol Invictus was practiced for thousands of years!? Sol Invictus was a late Roman "pagan revival" cult. No one knows exactly what "Sol Invictus" was, or what date it was celebrated on, if any. Was it in August? Was it May? Was it September? Did it exist before Aurelian? Did Elagabulus' Sol Invictus share anything with Aurelian's? There are references to Christ's birth being on December 25th well before all of this, and Christmas coincides with Hanukah, but on the Roman Calender, the same way Pascha does for Jewish Pascha. Besides the Hannukah connection December 25th also comes from both the belief that Mary conceived Jesus at Passover, and attempts to calculate his birth based on the priestly courses of the temple. If you can figure out when John the Baptists father was alleged to have been serving in the temple, you can figure out when John was conceived, add 6 months for when Jesus was conceived, then add 9 months for when he was born. In both cases you come to late December. The Greek eastern churches celebrate Christmas on January 6th/7th. Why is this? Is it because of Saturnalia or Sol Invictus? No. It's because they still use the Julian Calender, and calculate Passover in a slightly different manner, and the date of Christmas is based on Passover +9 months.
@@-timaeus-9781 It's funny, I'm already listening through this again, and drawn to the same threads, and find my own comments already there. Anyways, Saturnalia was an annual Roman holiday/event celebrated on December 15th. When Julius Caesar created his new solar calendar, the holiday was moved to the 17th. The reason for this is because Saturnalia was celebrated on the Ides of December(the 15th)which was 15 days before January 1st. The new calender now had 31 days in December, thus; Saturnalia was now on the 17th. Because of the change, Augustus later made the holiday a 3 day celebration, which was either the 15th-17th, or the 17th-19th. In the centuries that followed, there were times when it was celebrated for a whole week, going as late as the 23rd, but the holiday itself was always on the 17th(Julian calender), or before that the 15th(old Roman lunar calender). It is totally unrelated to Christmas. Christmas was celebrated on the 25th, and in Jewish fashion, it was 8 days long, known as the Christmas octave(the "12 days of Christmas" came much later, during the middle ages). It began on the 25th, and went through New Years day. Why 8 days? Because the Jewish calender had a 7 day week, and feasts would end a week later, on the day they began. The Romans did *not* have a 7 day week, but separated the month in half(the Ides), or in 3rds(the 10 day week), or sometimes in 4ths as an 8 day week. Christian Pascha/Easter is also an Octave, like Jewish Pascha/Passover. Hannukah(Dedication feast/festival of lights) is likewise 8 days, and begins on the 25th of Kislev(the Jewish lunar month corresponding to December). This year, Hannukah begins on December 22nd(25th of Kislev). Lastly, Easter(Pascha in most languages besides English/German) and corresponds to Passover. Where _Passover_ is the first full moon after the Vernal equinox, _Easter_ is the first Sunday, after the first full moon. In the bible, Jesus was said to have been crucified at Passover, and raised on Sunday. There are more contributing factors to dating, and differences between the Jewish, Julian, and Gregorian calenders, but those are the basics of it. Also, the church didn't "move it to the next full moon." If the first full moon after the equinox falls on a Sunday, then Easter is moved to the next full moon. Likewise, if the first full moon after the equinox falls on a leap month on the Jewish calender, Passover is moved to the next full moon. This year Easter was celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon, on April 21st(the full moon was on April 19th. The one before that was on March 20th, _before_ the equinox. Last year, Easter was on April 1st, 2018, just 12 days after the equinox, because the full moon was on March 31st, a Saturday. Easter was then scheduled for the following day. Jewish Passover 2018- (evening of) Friday, March 30th. Christian Easter 2018- Sunday, April 1st. - Passover 2019- (Evening of) Friday, April 19th. Easter 2019- Sunday, April 21st. Most languages refer to _both_ the Jewish and Christian holiday by the same name, or a name derived from it, such as Pesach(Hebrew), Pascha(Greek & Latin), Páscua/Páscoa(Spanish & Portuguese), Pâques(French), Pasqua(Italian & Corsican), Pasen(Dutch), pääsiäinen(Finnish), Påske(Danish & Norwegian), Πacxa(Russian), and so forth. Sometimes, other languages will add a distinction, such as Spanish's "Páscua de Resurrección" (Passover of the Resurrection), or the opposite, such as the Greek "εβραϊκό Πάσχα" (Jewish Pascha).
'Roman' at the time would have referred to any supporter of the principate. Statehood disregards biological disposition which is more a tribal means of observing affiliation.
in-di-fat-i-guh-buhl "jilted" -- no "Fourteen years ago ..." -- so 1996? Your refusal to make use of words like "prior" and "might" moves the action of your narrative from antiquity to the Twenty-First Century and is one of the most systematic of your English usage errors.
The Destruction of Palmyra really shows how stupid the Roman empire really was. The empire really wasn't head and shoulders above the rest of the world, they had only managed to create a more disciplined, even ruthlessly disciplined world order. And that is why they must constantly plug leaks in the defenses. There are always so many who really wanted to get out and run their own lives, or want to steal it back or steal it for the first time. When they need wealth to float the costs of civilization, why even think about destroying another economic power house? Some sort of confederation would have been better. Not even a more peaceful religion like Christianity helped here. In fact Christianity seems to have made people less observant of the world. The Christians insisted on total submission too. So maybe Gibbon was right that it helped destroy the empire? The arts decay and artists don't really make good portraiture anymore. The decorative arts even loose some finesse. The religion was making them even more dogmatic and stupid in many ways. No one could make better tools of government. The Third Reich really modelled itself on Roman history, even to the use of slaves and the looting of other people cultural landmarks. But they wanted a pseudo scientific rationalism to rule. And if they had won they would have been the new roman world and would have used mass murder to cement their own stupidities into place. The modern world had to learn something about mass mobilization and very nearly had to revive despotic rule to defeat them. FDR was the "dictator" in a barely democratic way throughout the war. He "reigned" for over 12 years and lasted longer than some of these emperors. It's frightening how shallow the old traits of the Romans lay in the human psyche even in the 20th century. Trump was making despotic noises like that too. The democratic side could be doing it soon enough and I'm suspicious of both parties. The Roman historians keep complaining - or at least later writers like Gibbon - maybe it's only Gibbon - about the luxury and softness of Roman citizens loosing their martial self-discipline, and Gibbon uses the phrase "oriental despotism" or "effeminacy" to describe the governments of the middle eastern empires. But those empires don't seem to be much less powerful for their "softness". Did they have to put down chronic rebellions too? But the women could be even more cruel and despotic. Women can be nasty, stupid and cruel too. This series is really making me think. Even if the roman government revived their old ways and reclaimed old territories, they still didn't quite work as well each time or last as long. The modern world is facing similar crisis. Only now it's easier for the world to unite, or at least meet in international organizations like the UN and other organizations, but the problems have become more difficult due to the complexity of the system. And solutions requiring too much discipline or sacrifice don't or won't last any longer now than they did then , I suspect.
Palmyra obtained their brief independence through defiance and bloodshed, and didn't learn their lesson after losing the first rebellion; don't feel sorry for them. The _Crisis of the Third Century_ came about from a variety of reasons, including inflation and frequent assassinations of emperors. The plugging of leaks in defenses came in good part b/c of the size of the empire by the time, giving a big target on its back. Christianity's very much not a peaceful religion. Though the consensus is that its ascent didn't damage the Roman Empire. You're under the impression that the Romans were unique to slavery and looting opponent cities during antiquity? That was VERY common back then. The Nazis weren't especially comparable to the Romans, as the former enslaved and killed people over gene pool, but not the Romans. I agree that women can be at least as nasty as men, I'll add often in different ways.
He really wasn't kidding when he said Aurelian was effective.
And 268-282 was such a decisive era of emperors too, before and after Aurelian's work too, even setting up its context (like with Claudius).
Aurelian was an absolute machine of an emperor
It's all in the AU. Augustus, Aurelius, Aurelian.
@@nillynush4899 Antonius?
@@Hugh_Morris not a AU
@@natejones963 your right, silly me
Him and Caesar are the only Romans who had to conquer Rome to prevent a permanent split while solving several economic and administrative issues. They both did it in 5 years and grew up during the most dangerous times of their respective eras, and they were both killed out of fear.
9 years since it aired, it definitely put a smile on my face hearing the new intro; 'welcome to the award winning podcast... `
1:43:19 "Aurelian was 60 years old, and ruled the empire for 5 magnificent years"
Felt
Oof
@@natejones963 Oof?
@@jtzoltan just oof
*AURELIAN NOOOO….*
P00
Discovered this channel ten years after it was made and when I heard "award winning" I got so happy good for everyone involved wish I could've voted for you too
Holly my comment is an exact image of yours and I still enjoy playing them even though there are no new podcasts
1
Can you help me I have trouble listening to English and there are no subtitles on some of the videos in the series?
@@Luchaliterature this isn't the actual person who made the podcast. The creators name is Mike Duncan. If you search for the real podcast on another platform it might have the transcriptions or subtitles.
This isn't Mike Duncans channel.
If anyone wants a 12 hour History of Rome episode about Sulla/Marius/Gracii brothers, Mike Duncan wrote a book called “The Storm Before the Storm.” He even starts and ends the audiobook with the same GarageBand melody. Excellent stuff.
It was taken down sadly
Thanks!
@@fartakiss9595sadly is right I never got to finish it but I loved listening to it at night
His 2nd book about Lafayette is Very good too
AURELIAN, NOOOOOOO!!
Sad to think how many of the buildings of Palmyra have been destroyed since this podcast was made.
Yes it is. Syria has a lot of valuable history.
Russia = Rome 3.0
@@-timaeus-9781 Not any more.
@@ClarenceDoskocil lol wut
Russia is just....how can you compare Russia with the Empire. Russia is NOTHING
What I've grown to love the most about this podcast is the bringing out of the biases at the time of the people who wrote the history. I watch many things regarding history and most of the time it's told as it's written without context so I'm very impressed with how comprehensive and thoughtful the scripting is of the podcast
It's a testament to Duncan's ability to tell this story that he's simultaneously able to grip you in its dramas while still being able to pull back the listener and go "Now, we don't have a lot of records here, and most of this stuff was written by stuffy senators. We have some possibilities here, nonetheless, Aurelian is about to kick some ass."
The age old question for emperors all over has always been whether to keep your army close to you or send them where they are actually needed and hopefully generals don't overthrow you.
Impossible dilemma without an insane cult of personality. The death of empires is the struggle of succession. Unless the ruling elite are incentivized to force a meritocracy, no empire is safe from one claimant or another having the resources and backing to attempt a coup. When the system is invested in one individual it's only as strong as that individual. A clear chain of command/succession that is stronger than any individual is the really the only countermeasure. In the modern world the United States executes this as best as you can. You'll have to kill 25+ specific individuals to really ensure a clear disruption of leadership and even if you took out DC and caught 99% of all national elected officials you still have 50 governors who have their own backups and infastructure.
It's noteworthy that there was an episode of global cooling in the 3rd Century AD. This gives rise to crop failures, paroxysmal outbreaks of disease, and population displacement.
Yes the climate change advocates refuse to realize that there are cyclic temperature changes over time. The global corporations just want to find new ways of squeezing money out of people.
Except it has never been so fast and so much before, except when enormous volcanoes or comets have been involved.
Palle : Took it hook line and sinker , didn't you.
Timaeus: Add to the corporations greed the desire of big government to control and tax everything.
Charles Wood My original comment is based on climate research. The onset of the Bubonic Plague in the 14th Century was preceded by a sudden period of global cooling.
In just a little over one presidential term, Aurelian will now conquer more than Caesar and Pompey, combined. After the worst catastrophe in the history of the empire.
Aurelian was so good the devs had to kill him off quick before he could break the metagame
Congratulations on winning the podcasts award 2010 well done
This is not him.
The podcast won! That's the point. Here I am 12 yrs past and very pleased.
18:15 Claudius dies and is succeeded by Quintillus, and then Aurelian.
Your profile photo makes your comment very menacing.....
My dad used to talk about Sandy Koufax ,he was before my time...Steve Carlton was probably my favorite pitcher.
Yeah, I had never heard of them. Baseball isn't really my cup of tea. :)
Nolan Ryan.
They just showed on TV how the Roman artifacts that you named in Palmyra and the ampitheater were just hit.
Yeah, I saw that. It's a terrible waste how they have been demolishing relics and ancient architecture in Syria over the past several years.
This is what pisses me off about ISIS the most, as cold as it is people can be replaced however such artifacts cannot
Of all the potential great leaders who was killed for stupid reasons, Probus is the most detrimental of all , having the legions working at bettering the infrastructures again could only hint to what the man had in mind.
Someone should make a chart that shows the line of emperors, how long they survived in office, and how they were killed. Until I started listening to these excellent podcasts I had no idea how bad Rome was in terms of the high number of assassinations and coups
It's called Wikipedia ;)
www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_Roman_emperors
Literally. The last 10 episodes are serious of assinations and betrayals. It's like hearing the same thing over and over. Praetorian over throws emporeor. Hail new emperor. Betray him. Again and again
1:15 onwards especially 1:46 is probably going to open up a whole new debate that leads to the rewriting of textbooks.
Wow got this far in the series, without realising I never actually said thank you for the amazing content, it clearly took a LOT of effort to make. Also I see that you are active in the comments too. I guess that'll be a double kudos right there...
it's not the author active but the guy who collected Mike Duncan's episodes into longer pieces. The author has finished a podcast about revolutions and is currenlty planning something new as far as i know.
He’s not going to sleep with you bro.
Aurelian was not a man but a demigod
Are the rest going to be uploaded? (Thanks very much for what you've already uploaded anyway if they aren't)
Yes, I will continue to upload them as I complete them. :)
1:43:19 *BY THE GODS, AURELIAN NOOOOOO….*
Gothicus was the man 🫡
2:54 the 3 keys to success
I really like these a lot, thanks so much for putting them up. I thought however that there were some arguments against the 1:1 association between Christmas and Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or that at least there's more nuance to the relationship rather than its having been an outright co-option.
Yes, the yearly festivals around the winter solstice are pretty much universal with a history going back thousands of years. The Mass of Christ was just another successor in a long line of such festivals.
Thanks for your reply! I've started listening to episodes on your podcast page because I'm all caught up with my binge-listening on YT -- just getting to Constantine. Josephus and Revolutions look really fascinating too -- you've certainly made the internet a more intellectually rich place, no mean feat considering some of the dross out there!
I have heard of Aurelian (r. 270-75), but I have never heard of Sandy Koufax (1935-). I actually had to look Koufax up so I would spell that baseball player's surname properly. Sorry, I don't know anything about baseball, but suffice it to say that I have learned that Koufax was the Aurelian of baseball, although now I feel like I am denying a competent Roman emperor the respect he deserves.
This is going to hurt.
anyone know were to find this image? would love it as a poster
I listen to these while playing ck3
how did the soldiers discover that the documents were forged? that the secretary lied? 1:43;42?
ty so much for making these :)
Thanks for watching!
They are not original to this channel. He has just uploaded them
Something nagging is what or how did the info travel so seemingly fast? Camelexpress?
No. Aurelian isn't why Christmas is Dec 25th. It's because of other reasons
My top 5 Imperator's of Roma:
1. Traianus AD117
2. Augustus AD14
3. Claudius AD54
4. Marcus Arellius AD180
5. Aurellianus AD275
And of course Augustus Mussolini
AD 1,944
:)
I did not base my favs. mostly on long reign and besr couriers but on hiw i personally saw their personality and personal achievements and how those 2 components effected the Empire in a Positive way.
Trajan was an jack of all trades Goos ar all things emperor. and general and Roman though being from spain and ruling at romes expasion hight(im a sucker for peak reign rulers) "Darius I eshkteet!"
Augustus was a humorous and badass ruler as well as smart and compassionate
Claudius strait out proved the Julio Claudians and Rome and history wrong and annexed most of the territories that make rome look as shmexy and huge as it did
and was a player on the miss me with that gay shit tip. no offence towards gays but in Ancient Rome heterosexuality was a feat of its own. also brought Rome out of 2 shitty tyrants before him, though you know. NERO.
any way he was the only GOOD Julio Claudian besides Augustus and being the 2nd longest dynasty of Rome i think thats saying something. But when compared to pervs psychopaths and incompatant spoiled vain idiots before and after it might not be. But I put Claudius right their nxt to Augustus in the dynasties good rulers there fore he makes my list cuz Augustus obiously does.
Marcus was Wise Smart had a seemingly peaceful and disciplined mind set and vibe.
He also could adapt easily going from scoller to effective general with virtually no military background.
Not to mentioned being able to keep him party loving brother from messing to much things up. With a reign plagued by disease war floods ect. Arellius stayed strong and made sure the empire did as well and i commend him for that. Also for being the glo guy he is continued the trend of great rulers poping up since Nirva. But you know. COMMODUS.
Aurellianus the unconquered reunified the empire and began the end of the 2nd century crisis he's really my what ifs on the list cuz i can only imagine what cool things he would have done say he ruled another decade or so Rome's history i feel would be very different and i personally feel he himself would have ended the 3d century crisis probably by 280 or even before. defenatly by 285 and would have gone down in history as even more of a badass.
Props tp the reunifire!
And of course Augustus Mussolini lets not forget him.
Conquered all of the african continent and reclaimed all of the land once held by the Ancient Roman Empire.
Made Hitler his bitch and had him give up all Anceint Roman territory he held claim to.
He's restarted the Dominate of Rome
but bigger and better. Was completely anti-fanciest but a nit nationalist, I meam common you restarted the Roman Empire how could you not be a little Roman prideful. He's basically
Augustus II
but better considering his colonial annexation of all Africa and actually making the germans his bitch and NOT beating around the bush when it came to striping senatorial power he just throw democracy and republicanism right out the door.
Avgvstvs Mvssolini
the great.
Mussolini's wet dream.
jokes.
I like Marcus Aurelius as well but he did persecute the Christians so he would lose points with me for that. And I also like how Claudius proved everyone wrong. They more or less mocked him as being simple merely because he wasn't corrupt like them.
Claudius should be removed from the list and replaced by Diocletian or Majorian. Also Aurelian should be moved to to third. Claudius I was a good emperor, but he doesn’t stand up to the other emperors on the list, but that’s just my opinion.
1. Augustus
2. Trajan
3. Marcus Aurelius
4. Diocletian
5. Aurelian
I'd say that's my favourites list but honestly it depends what mood I'm in. Ans there's a bunch of other emperors I find really cool such as Vespasian, Claudius and Septimius Severus.
your absolutely right on the top 5 emperor's but make it the top 6 and add vespasian to it
Aurelian is easily the most impressive Roman since Julius Caesar, and till Diocletian
how often do you update the show? I know there online anyways but I like it in yt better, great job btw
Thanks. I'm not really on any schedule so I'm not bound to any strict timeline, but I have fallen behind a bit lately. We'll get caught up though and we're getting close to the home stretch. :)
Steve Carleton 27 wins for the last place 1972 Philadelphia Phillies. 1.91 ERA. Peak value.
Probus and carus were both competent emperors..its a shame they had to exist in the period between aurelian and diocletian.
My rule of life has always been, if you are going to be named Probus - then also be competent.
I heard they now blame the burning of the library of Alexandria on Julius Ceasar? But i also heard the Muslims did it during their conquest.? This was the first time i heard of Aurelian doing it. Any one who may have a more central answer?
Alexander Hernandez i too was wondering this
Those all happened. Caesar destroyed part of it, Aurelian destroyed most of it, and Caliph Omar finished it off.
Copydot Right on.
The library of alexandria is the true grestest loss to the advance of civilisation. It was a collection of buildings that were are unsure of what they looked like beyond noted general ptolomey helleninistic taste, sadly we have an idea of what we lost just to quotes from authors that survived in late antiquity in other centers of the world. We lost everything with just enough left in secondary sources to rediscover them from the renaissance to the current day. The biggest contribution was leanardo de vinci. The biggest enemy is they politics of the papacy. But noting the powerful nature of individual abbeys i acknowledge the persistent slavish preservation of ancient manuscripts they miggt not fully understand but they knew the contents were valuable. The concept of the virtous pagan saved much. There is one other destruction copydot. Missed. The chistian uprising and the cruel murder of a lost genius in the 400s. See the film agora for a fairly good Hollywood version. Its rarely covered by western historians but it is to be acknowledged the greatest debt in the of maintaince of what we saved to tbe byzantine empire. It acted as a buffer that stood far longer than anyone had a riggt to expect against the various muslim powers and the debauched treachery of the first crusade and the next 12 crusades.
I love history, My one problem with the Roman history is this. Can't you give a kid a different name, ever.
You need to add captions…please
Sol Invictus was not "celebrated" on December 25th. We don't know if or what time of year, or how it may or may not have been celebrated. There are many different dates associated with "Sol Invictus." This is a popular misconception. The reason December 25th is one of the dates associated with Sol Invictus is from a mid 4th century source referring to a 3rd century temple to Sol Invictus being built, then dedicated on December 25th. There are other dates associated with celebrating Sol Invictus in July, August, and September.
December 25th is referenced as Christ's date of birth a century before this time, around the year 200.
Bo Jackson - Aurellian
I am a history major. You are an absolute genius.
The 'rex' that could be 'cided' 5:22
You said 'indefatigUable'! Twice!!
The Thread of Prophecy has been severed, the World is doomed.
Aurelian was Dacian, not Illyrian.
👍
1:19:00
blood and iron....
I did a little reading on Queen Zenobia . And I feel bad for her. From what I read about her , Queen Zenobia was a first class enlightened monarch. Her big thing that made her so good a queen, was that she made Palmyra a sanctuary country , where there was religious toleration in her realms. If you ask me, Queen Zenobia was centuries ahead of her time.
Even to this day, Queen Zenobia is a very much revered historical figure in modern day Syria.
I dunno. She clearly wasn't good enough to beat Aurelian. No amount of enlightenment on the Empress's part could counter Aurelian's sheer military prowess. And I don't know what you mean by "centuries ahead of her time". Imperial Rome was notorious for its religious diversity. Have you ever looked up just how many different deities were worshiped in the City of Rome? They practically stole Greece's entire pantheon and simply gave them new names because they found Rome's native gods to be bland by comparison. Ironically, it wasn't till Christianity was made Rome's official religion in the late fourth century by Theodosius I that the persecution began🤔.
From 1977 to 1990, the Central Bank of Syria ran a series of 100-pound (lira) banknotes honouring Queen Zenobia, and as inflation increased, they moved her to the 500-lira bill there. It was completely justified.
The author is a bit biased towards Zenobia, considering how utterly defeated she was ultimately and how little success she achieved compared to her husband.
zenobia sounds like xenophobia
Xena: Warror phobia
@Domantas dovahhatty is not a reliable source for information about the roman empire
The reason that Christmas is celebrated on December 25th is because Jesus was crucified on March 25th. Christians believe Christ was conceived on the same day he was crucified, March 25th. So 9 months after March 25th is December.
Reason is that 24th December was originally birth of Sol Inviktus and for easier conversion of population Christmas was palced on this date
75 thousand views and fewer than 30 thousand subscribers? P. U. - pew ! 'Puteat'....'it stinks' !
Will Durant suggested in his book "Caesar and Christ" that a contributing factor to the steady Roman decline in the West in particular was the issue of birth rates. Rich Italian upper class ladies were becoming too independent and vain to produce the next generation of soldiers for the empire, while the Germans, with improved methods of agriculture picked up from civilization, were breeding like rabbits. Poor blue eyed whites out breeding and invading the territories of spoiled, wealthy generally darker skinned Latinos who's women were too cool to have babies. A situation which is now somewhat reversed in our own epoch and hemisphere.
Roman Brown You are stupid as hell.
another incel trying blame the fall of an ancient civilization on a modern view of "feminism"
Oh boy how wrong you are. Rome didn’t lose its masculine values, it indulged it them to the point where it destroyed them. Rome would have never fallen if it wasn’t engaged in its series of endless civil wars and attempted usurpations against itself. When Alaric sacked Rome, the city wasn’t relieved because the army was off trying to quell another usurper emperor
Most of the men didn't become soldiers because Diocletian reforms locked people into family profession (starting proto-feudalism) also the western empire had a quarter of the wealth and a quarter of the population so if anything, the western empire had more soldiers than it could actually support. Also, soldiers were compensated with a plot of land that was supplied by the state at the end of their 20 year enlistment. Land that had to be acquired from conquered peoples and expansion which Rome hadn't done since the reign of Trajan. Rome fell because it was the apex of a successful ancient civilization that grew in power from conquests, Rome simply ran out of people and land worth conquering but couldn't rid itself of the state aparatus that required a constant influx of wealth to support itself
What percentage of the Army was even coming from Rich Italian upper class anyway at this point.
This guy sometimes jumps to conclusions with unproven theories, there is no direct evidence that Christmas was placed in 25 December because of the Sol Invictus religion.
The Christ Mass was absolutely placed on the 25th corresponding to the Roman Saturnalia three days after yule when the sun came back to life again in the exact same way that the church placed Michael Mass on February 1st to correspond to Imbolg and Halloween on Samhain, November 1st. Easter would have been placed on the equinox in March but they didn't want to relate directly to the Jewish Passover so they moved it to the next New Moon after it.
Any scholarly source on that though? Festivities coincinding around the Winter solstice is no sign of direct borrowing and there is no conclusive evidence Christian took the exact date either.
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1t7hbg/what_are_the_historic_facts_about_december_25th/
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gtzc8/ive_often_heard_that_the_date_many_christians/
Direct evidence no, but if you look at it from a practicality term, replacing one holiday with another that people are already been used to for thousands of years when trying to enforce a new state religion makes the most sense
@@lolwutyoumad Sol Invictus was practiced for thousands of years!? Sol Invictus was a late Roman "pagan revival" cult. No one knows exactly what "Sol Invictus" was, or what date it was celebrated on, if any. Was it in August? Was it May? Was it September? Did it exist before Aurelian? Did Elagabulus' Sol Invictus share anything with Aurelian's?
There are references to Christ's birth being on December 25th well before all of this, and Christmas coincides with Hanukah, but on the Roman Calender, the same way Pascha does for Jewish Pascha.
Besides the Hannukah connection December 25th also comes from both the belief that Mary conceived Jesus at Passover, and attempts to calculate his birth based on the priestly courses of the temple. If you can figure out when John the Baptists father was alleged to have been serving in the temple, you can figure out when John was conceived, add 6 months for when Jesus was conceived, then add 9 months for when he was born. In both cases you come to late December. The Greek eastern churches celebrate Christmas on January 6th/7th. Why is this? Is it because of Saturnalia or Sol Invictus? No. It's because they still use the Julian Calender, and calculate Passover in a slightly different manner, and the date of Christmas is based on Passover +9 months.
@@-timaeus-9781 It's funny, I'm already listening through this again, and drawn to the same threads, and find my own comments already there.
Anyways, Saturnalia was an annual Roman holiday/event celebrated on December 15th. When Julius Caesar created his new solar calendar, the holiday was moved to the 17th. The reason for this is because Saturnalia was celebrated on the Ides of December(the 15th)which was 15 days before January 1st. The new calender now had 31 days in December, thus; Saturnalia was now on the 17th.
Because of the change, Augustus later made the holiday a 3 day celebration, which was either the 15th-17th, or the 17th-19th. In the centuries that followed, there were times when it was celebrated for a whole week, going as late as the 23rd, but the holiday itself was always on the 17th(Julian calender), or before that the 15th(old Roman lunar calender). It is totally unrelated to Christmas.
Christmas was celebrated on the 25th, and in Jewish fashion, it was 8 days long, known as the Christmas octave(the "12 days of Christmas" came much later, during the middle ages). It began on the 25th, and went through New Years day.
Why 8 days? Because the Jewish calender had a 7 day week, and feasts would end a week later, on the day they began. The Romans did *not* have a 7 day week, but separated the month in half(the Ides), or in 3rds(the 10 day week), or sometimes in 4ths as an 8 day week. Christian Pascha/Easter is also an Octave, like Jewish Pascha/Passover. Hannukah(Dedication feast/festival of lights) is likewise 8 days, and begins on the 25th of Kislev(the Jewish lunar month corresponding to December). This year, Hannukah begins on December 22nd(25th of Kislev).
Lastly, Easter(Pascha in most languages besides English/German) and corresponds to Passover. Where _Passover_ is the first full moon after the Vernal equinox, _Easter_ is the first Sunday, after the first full moon. In the bible, Jesus was said to have been crucified at Passover, and raised on Sunday. There are more contributing factors to dating, and differences between the Jewish, Julian, and Gregorian calenders, but those are the basics of it. Also, the church didn't "move it to the next full moon."
If the first full moon after the equinox falls on a Sunday, then Easter is moved to the next full moon.
Likewise, if the first full moon after the equinox falls on a leap month on the Jewish calender, Passover is moved to the next full moon.
This year Easter was celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon, on April 21st(the full moon was on April 19th. The one before that was on March 20th, _before_ the equinox.
Last year, Easter was on April 1st, 2018, just 12 days after the equinox, because the full moon was on March 31st, a Saturday. Easter was then scheduled for the following day.
Jewish Passover 2018- (evening of) Friday, March 30th.
Christian Easter 2018- Sunday, April 1st.
-
Passover 2019- (Evening of) Friday, April 19th.
Easter 2019- Sunday, April 21st.
Most languages refer to _both_ the Jewish and Christian holiday by the same name, or a name derived from it, such as Pesach(Hebrew), Pascha(Greek & Latin), Páscua/Páscoa(Spanish & Portuguese), Pâques(French), Pasqua(Italian & Corsican), Pasen(Dutch), pääsiäinen(Finnish), Påske(Danish & Norwegian), Πacxa(Russian), and so forth.
Sometimes, other languages will add a distinction, such as Spanish's "Páscua de Resurrección" (Passover of the Resurrection), or the opposite, such as the Greek "εβραϊκό Πάσχα" (Jewish Pascha).
Roman had no meaning by this time. Anyone could be called 'roman' which gave the label no common bond leaving it powerless.
'Roman' at the time would have referred to any supporter of the principate. Statehood disregards biological disposition which is more a tribal means of observing affiliation.
I'm sure Cicero said the same thing when all Italians were granted citizenship in his day.
in-di-fat-i-guh-buhl
"jilted" -- no
"Fourteen years ago ..." -- so 1996? Your refusal to make use of words like "prior" and "might" moves the action of your narrative from antiquity to the Twenty-First Century and is one of the most systematic of your English usage errors.
Career value vs peak value
Fantastic stuff, but your pronunciation of names is atrocious...
The Destruction of Palmyra really shows how stupid the Roman empire really was. The empire really wasn't head and shoulders above the rest of the world, they had only managed to create a more disciplined, even ruthlessly disciplined world order. And that is why they must constantly plug leaks in the defenses. There are always so many who really wanted to get out and run their own lives, or want to steal it back or steal it for the first time. When they need wealth to float the costs of civilization, why even think about destroying another economic power house? Some sort of confederation would have been better. Not even a more peaceful religion like Christianity helped here. In fact Christianity seems to have made people less observant of the world. The Christians insisted on total submission too. So maybe Gibbon was right that it helped destroy the empire? The arts decay and artists don't really make good portraiture anymore. The decorative arts even loose some finesse. The religion was making them even more dogmatic and stupid in many ways. No one could make better tools of government.
The Third Reich really modelled itself on Roman history, even to the use of slaves and the looting of other people cultural landmarks. But they wanted a pseudo scientific rationalism to rule. And if they had won they would have been the new roman world and would have used mass murder to cement their own stupidities into place. The modern world had to learn something about mass mobilization and very nearly had to revive despotic rule to defeat them. FDR was the "dictator" in a barely democratic way throughout the war. He "reigned" for over 12 years and lasted longer than some of these emperors. It's frightening how shallow the old traits of the Romans lay in the human psyche even in the 20th century. Trump was making despotic noises like that too. The democratic side could be doing it soon enough and I'm suspicious of both parties.
The Roman historians keep complaining - or at least later writers like Gibbon - maybe it's only Gibbon - about the luxury and softness of Roman citizens loosing their martial self-discipline, and Gibbon uses the phrase "oriental despotism" or "effeminacy" to describe the governments of the middle eastern empires. But those empires don't seem to be much less powerful for their "softness". Did they have to put down chronic rebellions too? But the women could be even more cruel and despotic. Women can be nasty, stupid and cruel too.
This series is really making me think. Even if the roman government revived their old ways and reclaimed old territories, they still didn't quite work as well each time or last as long. The modern world is facing similar crisis. Only now it's easier for the world to unite, or at least meet in international organizations like the UN and other organizations, but the problems have become more difficult due to the complexity of the system. And solutions requiring too much discipline or sacrifice don't or won't last any longer now than they did then , I suspect.
Palmyra obtained their brief independence through defiance and bloodshed, and didn't learn their lesson after losing the first rebellion; don't feel sorry for them.
The _Crisis of the Third Century_ came about from a variety of reasons, including inflation and frequent assassinations of emperors. The plugging of leaks in defenses came in good part b/c of the size of the empire by the time, giving a big target on its back.
Christianity's very much not a peaceful religion. Though the consensus is that its ascent didn't damage the Roman Empire.
You're under the impression that the Romans were unique to slavery and looting opponent cities during antiquity? That was VERY common back then. The Nazis weren't especially comparable to the Romans, as the former enslaved and killed people over gene pool, but not the Romans.
I agree that women can be at least as nasty as men, I'll add often in different ways.
A map of Germania with swastikas in the corners is... not ideal.
Awwww dont crap yourself boy close your eyes if it is so horrid
Lol those aren't swastikas.