🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
🤗 Join our Patreon community: https://www.patreon.com/Maiorianus
😉 Or become an official Maiorianus member on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/Maiorianus461/join
🎁 The official Maiorianus merch store is now OPEN:
https://maiorianus.myspreadshop.com
⚔️ SPQR Shop, excellent hand-crafted Roman rings and other items:
https://spqrshop.com/?sca_ref=4770010.FM16q4LJHr
Enter the code “Maiorianus” to get a 20% discount on every purchase. The ideal present for any fan of Rome 😉!
The wonderful background music is by Adrian von Ziegler: https://youtu.be/USz9cwVSaqg
Disclosures: Some links in the description are affiliate links which means that if you purchase something by clicking on one of them, your host Sebastian will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. In this way you will be supporting the channel to improve the video production quality at no extra cost to you.
🤗 One-Time Donation?
– PayPal: https://paypal.me/Maiorianus
– Bitcoin: bc1qv4lsfsplvfecrrgvmfclhga28we7mvh9563xdj
🔗 Share the video with anyone who might be interested (it helps a ton!)
📬 Contact us: [email protected]
#Maiorianus
source
⚔ SPQR Shop, excellent hand-crafted Roman rings and other items:
https://spqrshop.com/?sca_ref=4770010.FM16q4LJHr
Enter the code "Maiorianus" to get a 20% discount on every purchase. The ideal present for any fan of Rome 😉!
I think you are on to something.
Roman succession was both too rigid and not rigid enough.
It was too rigid because only fullblood Romans could be emperor. This rule became more and more rigid towards the end. This excluded talented men like Stilicho and Aetius who were half-Germanic. This made it necessary for them to rule through puppet emperors that would eventually kill them.
It was not rigid enough because there were not real rules for succession. Any general (as long as he was Roman enough) could be made emperor. Anyone who was good enough at plotting and killing the competition could be emperor. There were occasional dynasties (and mostly those were the best times for the Empire) but those rarely lasted for more than 4 generations. There was never a truely stable dynasty.
The advantage of strongly heriditary monarchy is stability. There is no civil war, because the next king is known in advance. Countries like Capetian France and Habsburg Austria were very stable. There were only civil wars if there was no successor with a strong claim and several with a more or less equal claim. The same goes for Achaemenid Persia. In the Roman Empire the absence of a clear successor was the rule, not the exception. And it goes back all the way to Augustus, because of his fiction that Rome was still a republic.
The amazing thing is not that the Roman Empire fell, it is that they kept it working for so long. That should be the focus for research.
The issue is that american liberal views america as the great enemy, how are you supposed to interact with that? How are you supposed to fight a war with that? I think the romans of old started to do the same calculus that the conservative american males are doing and that the fall of the west is inevitable at this point. Why should i risk my life in battle just to be called a murderer when i return home? Why should i risk my life protecting the nation when ill just be told that im racist for making split second life or death decisions that i was called to? As a conservative male, the loss of the roman empire is becoming easier to understand because im hated for being me, and i the risk reward benefit of ensuring the free world isnt there. So what am i suppossed to do? Hunker down and build my own empire so im in a position of strength when it all comes crashing down. Which i think many romans joined the barbarians, hence the return to many roman customs and virtues after the barbarian kingdoms were established
The constant civil wars of the Roman Empire might strike us as horribly unproductive, but if we compare the longevity of the Roman Empire and the enduring quality of their military to similar pre-industrial hegemonic powers (Achaemenid Persia, or the Han, Tang, Song, Yuan dynasties of China), I think the Romans should get some credit for avoiding the atrophy that undermines military performance a few generations into the hegemonic pax. For example, let’s suppose the adoptive monarchy of the 5 Good Emperors evolved into a successful system of government that kept civil wars to a minimum for centuries – when the climate change induced migrations came, would the soft legions of that timeline have held up against the Goths and Huns for as long as the legions in ours?
From everything I've read the primary cause for the fall of Rome was not all those other things that people talk about, which Rome could have survived.
The ultimate cause for the fall of Rome was the lack of a mechanism for peaceful transfer of power from one government to the next.
Too many civil wars were fought over succession.
The SPQR shop is keeping this man in their basement bruh
One theory that I have heard is that the fall of Rome was caused by a natural catastrophe around 535 AD, which was manifested by a darkening of the sun for about 18 months, among other things. This may sound ridiculous because the Roman Empire was overrun by German tribes in the 400's. So how could this have been caused by an event around 535 AD? The theory that I have heard is that the natural disaster that we think occurred around 535 AD actually occurred about 300 years earlier. It is our chronology which is at fault. According to what some researchers believe to be the correct chronology, it was the natural disaster that triggered the Third Century Crisis, from which the Roman Empire never recovered. If you can find the time and can read German, try reading Hans-Erdmann's book, "Das Grosste Irrtum der Weltgeschichte." Difficult to read, but fascinating.
very interesting video, I think this topic is perfect for endless fascinating discussions. When I did this thinking myself, I actually came to the same conclusion. The succession crisis was one of the main reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire.
But for me personally, saying that the succession crisis happened because people are just people is too generalizing. We can also say that the absence of the teachings of the Buddha leads to the fall, because some Buddhist meditation practices lead to our subconscious awareness of patterns of behavior (the aforementioned tribal behavior). In this case Christianity is to blame because the Church fights so fiercely to prevent the spread of any unauthorized ideas.
See, endless discussion 🙂
And now we have certain political interests force-feeding Wokeism based on so-called Diversity/Equity/Inclusivity/Critical Race Theory racial obsession/Intersectionality ideology into America's schools, culture and political system. So either by design or by unconscious natural behavior, this is a direct effort to fragment the United States so it will devolve into the same tribalism which eventually destroyed the Roman Empire as per this video. Either America's greatest adversaries are so diabolical and ingenious that they are orchestrating this with hidden payments and training to key professional agitators who then recruit useful idiots who swallow it whole out of foolish blindness to jump start and perpetuate it all in Academia, Entertainment, and Politics? OR it is simply a symptom of the inevitable tribalism that always lurks in the human mind, and if it wasn't this ideology that splits the country apart if unchecked, it would have been something else? Or it's a combination of both? Also, social media can be a unifier over large distances, but it also seems to be a great divider as well, turning people into addicts of their own mental silos and echo chambers, isolated from actual human interaction. Just wait until AI and Virtual Reality apps lead people into living their lives totally trapped within their own "realities."
Rome should then have collapsed much earlier than +476 if civil conflict was the cause and Rome was always in a state of violent civil strife.
The actual immediate cause was that Rome was commissioning men from without the Italian peninsula as officers — men had no sense of real loyalty toward Rome.
At one point, they were even recruiting emperors from without, men who were not even proficient in the Latin language.
The British in India many centuries later, while they certainly recruited huge numbers of legionnaires from the local population, knew enough not to commission as officers Indian men who probably could not have found London on the map, much less have any sense any loyalty to it.
The most likely cause for Rome's indiscretion in getting its officers from abroad was the loss of the Roman wok ethic, caused by the increasing number of slaves being brought into Rome and, probably Italy at large. The idleness thus engendered led to extensive juvenile delinquency and general overall indifference
If Rome had a consistent figurehead dynasty from the beginning like Japan (probably direct descendants of Romulus) then that would’ve provided a consistent common figure to rally around, with an Augustus figure acting more like a Shogun.
Though in some ways a Shogun can be compared to a Magister Militum, the latter never established dynasties. But yeah overall a generationalky consistent and peacefully elected figurehead that everyone could agree on that has a degree of religious authority would have greatly changed how their society handled a large state.
Maybe if the Empire had survived long enough the Papacy could have taken on this role, but the way it played out in Constantinople was that the bishop was solidly beneath the emperor.
To save the Roman Empire you have to prevent Julius Cesar assassination and have Octavian get military exprerence under him or Anthony and Cleopatria have to win the battle of Actium.
The real cause of the fall of rome was ethics.The romans stopped pax romana when the germanic tribes where willing to become roman.The romans wouldn t let them become roman. That was their downfall.
Danke, sehr spannende Einsichten!
They Plain, Got Lazy!!!!!!!!!!!! CARELESS!!!!!!!!!!!! AND THE SO CALLED BARBARIANS, WERE LITERALLY, HUNGRY!!!!!!!!!!!! AND ROME WAS HARDLY, THE SUPER POWER, THAT IT WAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And the simplest factor uniting all the complexities of competing (and intertwining) reasons for the end of .. the Roman imperium (aka domination) .. over its neighbours (in the West, later in the South and later still the East) is this:
The reality outstripped the ideology; not unlike the British Empire (only longer).
The British ruling class(es) eventually lost interest (in diminishing returns on their investment, in time, people, and funds) .. and other ways of exerting control than via dominion proved attractive (costing less, draining fewer reserves), and so going back to the old 'alliance' trick was once again more manageable. A common 'wealth' pool of shared interests, cultural quirks, and alleged social aims – language, education, justice, law, privilege etc prevailed over arms, might, and taxes or prestige.
Rome's domain imploded in the West, it was exploded in the South, and it decayed through crumbling away by pieces in the East. The Turks still called tn Roum, the Arabs took over its Helleno-Romanic culture as their own, and the Germans, et al, made its parts into something altogether new. And it is in the latter ethos that most of us here, believe it or not, still live, and move and have our being – like it or not.
History can be fun .. Yey!
Rome never fell: it's been right here, in our hearts, all of this time.
Again, very insightfull. I am glad that people like you, that give new information, exists.
for these contenders for the Imperial, it was a matter of life-or-death to win, at best the loser would be just blinded.
I think it was also classism. And the self cleaning moldboard plow. Both of those things together actually.
The John Deere patentet moldboard plow was, like much else of the Western agricultural revolution, a case of a white guy "inventing" something the Chinese had already used for about two milennia.
The Romans never bothered inventing this. It would have made a huge difference in the agricultural productivity in regions like Pannonia an the entirity of Gallia. Gallia was a colony, a place the Romans had destroyed and enslaved and looked down on, they didnt view it as worth developing. It remained sparsely populated and an economic loss to defend.
Had the Romans, at the hight of their glory bothered inventing the self cleaning moldboard plow or gone to China and asked for one, plus started working on some other methods for agricultural productivity in suitable for Western Erurope such as the three field system, this region could have become much more densly populated and profitable. This could have laid the ground work for a possible further industrial revolution or at least a textile industry in Roman Gaul since even slaves have to have warm clothes.
Some more land might have been available to settle retired soldiers on.
It might also have led to a gradual change in Romes relationship to the Germanic tribes.
Since Northern Europe was concidered an unproductice wilderness by the Romans, its population was worth more as slaves than as tax payers staying in their native territories. This of course gave them a good reason to fight to the last drop of blood to resist Roman conquest.
Now imagine If Germania had become more prosperous and densely populated (but probably still disunited) which in time might have made the germans open to becoming part of the Roman Empire as long as they got to stay free inhabitants of their own land. They could still serve in the army, there would have been more of them and the Roman north Eastern border would have been much shorter and more managable. The wends (Poland) might in time have had the same developement, so we might have seen a Roman Wendia.
If the Empire still splits up, Western Rome would still be in a better economic position.
Better agricultural equipment and methods for agriculture in colder European conditions would also have opened up a new front; Ukraine. Well within reach of main Roman trade and transport routes and full of first class farm land to hand out to legionaires, keeping the system of land for army service going for many years longer than it did. If it could but be defended from all those horse nomads.
Ergo, If the patricians would have bothered with the technicalities of developing parts of their empire they looked down on, and the work of people they viewed as the lowest of the low, the Empire might have been in much better shape and looked quite different Come the 5th and 6th century. There is something to learn from this.
I wanna hear peoples opinions on my theory.
The money went East and the parasitic church gobbled it all up . Hence the state fell.
It's a Amazing Vídeo.
Drying up of productive mines in Hispania, leads to currency debasement, leads to fewer troops, leads to invasions, leads to population decline, and spirals into more decline.
CHRISTIANS!
But WHY didn't the Romans, after all, a pragmatic and practical people, solve the issue of a peaceful change of emperor? Yes, the change of king, emperor, everywhere in history caused some confusion, even in our times the USSR did not solve this matter quite well, but nevertheless many countries solved it better than the constant wars of usurpers.
To answer why Rome fell, you must understand why it arose. Look at a map. Rome arose around the Mediterranean. It became the maritime trading power in the Mediterranean upon conquering and absorbing Carthage and the Phoenicians who had been the maritime trading power in the Mediterranean. Rome made the trade larger and safer with their army and navy. Rome's population and wealth soared and it endured through the Pax Roman. Then what happened? Wars and contact Persia brought pathogens into the Mediterranean from the Far East. In addition to the large plagues spread by maritime trade, a variety of pathogens increased death rates in all Roman Cities. Germany, that Rome was never interested in because it was land locked, was not so impacted by pathogens. Germans drank ale made with boiled water, lived in detached dwellings, did not use public fountains or public baths. They did not attend large public shows. Rome depopulated with all the pathogens spread around the Mediterranean, while parts of Germany were unaffected. The shipping in the Mediterranean was the first aspect of the empire to decline and this put the entire Roman economy in decline.
Rome had to maintain their 400k army to deal with Germans but now with a dwindling population and declining economy. First came the economic problems of the Third Century, then came barbarians in the army, then came the barracks emperors and break away republics. Then came the many civil wars. The economic advantages of a maritime trading power on the Mediterranean disappeared with the pathogens now being spread by trade and shipping.
Answer – If you thin the paint to make it go further, you might achieve the coverage you want but it won’t last as long or hold up as well. End of story .
❤❤❤
I’m listening, for the second time, to Chris Wickham’s The Inheritance of Rome, which is excellent (I often fall asleep if listening at night, so I listen a second time to hear what I missed the first time). Wickham discusses the many factors that prevented the restoration of the Western Roman Empire in the first few centuries after the barbarian invasions, despite many attempts by the Eastern Emperors, the barbarian new kings of the former western provinces, and others. It’s fascinating and I learned so much about the period just after the “Fall” of the Western Empire. The Fall was, I believe, caused by the co-occurrence of many factors, as you say here, Sebastian, but another interesting question is why the West couldn’t be recovered as part of the Empire. Love your channel, thank you so much for your great work.🙂
Being egoistic is purely natural, even if you think you are acting altruistic the motivating factor will still be egoistic. So the problem of the Roman Empire was not, that powerful people acted egoistic, but rather that the political system allowed them to commit egoistic acts, which harmed the empire. In a good political system egoism strengthens the society, which the political system of the Roman Empire did not accomplish.
I agree with all the factors you name as contributing to the fall of the Western Empire. I would also add the expectation of the armies/praetorian guard to be paid off by the candidates they supported as emperor with huge donatives. The problem with this is that there are always other candidates who are prepared to pay more, and they did, over and over again. I hope that the power-sharing structures of our modern democratic societies prevent this. My biggest fear during the Trump presidency was that he would somehow, perhaps with payouts, get the US military to support him, without that, no president could accomplish a coup d’etat. January 6 showed that he couldn’t do it, despite his best attempts. I don’t understand why he’s still a free man, he is obviously guilty of treason against the United States!
Dilution of it's Roman population?
Red China is the biggest unified tribe on earth? Have they figured out the long game?
A lot of conquered nations were unhappy campers in the Roman Empire. They revolted often. Accordingly, Rome always had to maintain a large expensive army.