The End Of The Roman Army: What Led To Its Downfall?
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 08. 2019
- / history_uncovered
What happened to the Western Roman Army at the end of the empire? Did it collapse at the end or to it fall away piece by piece over a period of time?
In this video I will discuss the factors the led the most powerful army in the ancient world to disappear and never be seen again.
Sources:
The Roman Army: A History 753 BC - AD 476
by Patricia Southern
The Late Roman Army
by Pat Southern & Karen R. Dixon
Ok that end was just outright sad...
Once, they were the best infantrymen in all of human history, but in the end they were pretty much pushovers, abandoned by their state.
Very sad indeed. That why Mr Trump wants to avoid the declining of USA. Too bad there wasn't a Trump to make Rome great again T__T
(And build the wall and let the Barbarians to pay for its costs ^__^)
@nanda erdhani observing a map shows that compared to the East the West had better frontiers and looking at a first glance you will think that the East should've collapsed first and the East understood their situation using their wealth from their better developed and more urbanised provinces in their advantage and also better diplomacy to make those tribes to target the West. Now another problem was Attila. Most of the damage that he had done is quite exaggerated but by defeating so many Roman armies made both empires to rely more on barbarians as high ranking officers and generals that used their position to do whatever they wanted and both empires tried to get rid of them the East being more successful because they managed this situation better but the west probably because of barbarins directed by the Eastern empire were more desperate but the problem was that they need them because the West wasn't so urbanised and had a smaller population. Also not all soldiers were undisciplined, the best army being always by the emperor side to avoid generals from taking the power like in the 3rd century also the army was reformed to have more officers to limit a general's authority leading to situations like in the case of the Belisarius's Italian campaign were because of the command structure most officers disobeyed him for political gain and also when Justinian almost lost Italy it was because the urbanised centers weren't what they were before in terms of population and also the command in Italy was very decentralised having 5 commanders. Now because the West was so dependant on those barbarian generals they did whatever they wanted like for example Ricimer who if I remember correctly deposed 4 emperors one of them being Majorian. In conclusion even tough geographycly the East should have fell they had a better understanding of the situation and with a better economy they avoided most of their problems by forcing the West to deal with them.
@DJ_Trolly and then the "free european men" started to larp as romans for the next millenium calling themselves succesors of Rome and its Empire.
@DJ_Trolly Romam citizens had actual freedoms and protection .
There were slaves yes but those same barbarians also had slaves .Slavery was used in europe trough middle ages as well
@@bogdan3386 Looking to the map West had in reality far worse frontiers to defend.They had to defend much longer frontier against pretty freqent raids and invasions than east who had to defend only much shorter border in Balkan and against Persia with barbarians raids at africa for both halves being less serious issue.
Wasn’t the theory that the Roman army was heavily barbarized-and that these germans were disloyal, ineffective, and not romanized-disproven? The late Roman army was still winning major victories and campaigns right up until the very end. Hell, Majorian reconqered most of Gaul and Hispania. And would’ve retaken Carthage if not for treachery.
It was not disproven, more disagreed with the scale of the Un-Romanized Germanic influence. Also while Majorian did technically retake Gaul and Hispania for the Empire. He technically did not conquer them, he merely returned the tribes controlling them to Federated Status. Additionally his Army was mostly comprised of Foederotti and Mercenaries which he disbanded after losing his fleet. It was because of this fact that Ricimer was able to intercept him, arrest and execute him.
The theory seems like complete nonsense. The Roman army enlisted huge numbers of non - Roman auxiliaries from the earliest years of The Empire.
The Germans weren’t the problem. They were the only thing holding shit together.
Those auxiliaries were mostly other Italian tribes. Small amounts of Gauls or cretans or Baleric slingers doesn’t make an army. The vast majority of soldiers were Italians during the republic and early Empire.
@@hughmongus6534 That's not true. You can't compare the Auxiliary before Augustus to the Auxiliary after. The Auxiliary of the empire weren't only specialized troops, slingers, or cavalry. They were also regular heavy infantry, and in total equalled the number of citizen legionaries.
The Auxiliary of the empire were recruited everywhere except Italy, from non-citizen provincials to Barbarians beyond the border. There were even Citizen Auxiliary units from non-Roman territories that were stationed in Britain and fought as heavy infantry(and fought together as a tribe under a Prefect).
Even Citizen legionaries weren't mainly from Italy in the 1st century, but from the colonies, and from the citizen provincial populations surrounding colonies. I don't have an immediate source, but I've read that of the 4 legions that fought in Palestine in 66-73ad under Vespasian and Titus, mostly only the officers were actually from Italy.
And as early as 50-100ad, the army also included regular units of allied Foederati, fighting as tribesmen, on loan from bordering client states.
Going back to the late Repunlican civil wars shows even then, large numbers of non-Italians were serving in the army. Pompey, and later, Brutus & Cassius raised enormous armies in Greece and Anatolia, Scipio raised an army in Africa, and Pompey's son another in Spain. Caesar raised his armies in Cisalpine Gaul before it was granted citizenship, and raised more troops in Transalpine Gaul.
Nobody who lived in the Eastern Roman empire ever called themselves Byzantine...it's a name created by historians so easternize/otherize/orientalize the Christian orthodox in reality they were roman
Whatever...
Luis Aldamiz
What do you mean whatever? It was the actual Roman Empire. There was only one Roman Empire. The split between East and West was administrative to deal with the issues of the frontier threats. Though there were two Emperors there was still one Empire. After the West fell its regalia was sent to the East and the other Kingdoms recognized the East as the sole Roman Empire and its nominal suzerain. Greek was always used as administrative language in the East thanks to Alexander the Great. The Roman elite spoke Greek as a second language. It’s like how in the Russian Empire many nobles spoke French as the lingua Franca.
The Empire only shifted to Greek after the loss of its Latin speaking regions but even then Latin inscriptions remained on some official documents and coinage up until the 11th century.
@@justinpachi3707 - That's what I mean: "whatever". There was no "Roman Empire" after Diocletian, once Italy was almost totally removed from the equation. It was a residue with a memory but it's like calling India "the British Empire": it makes no sense.
Luis Aldamiz
What?
The other provincials saw themselves as Romans. The Romans had a sort of universal citizenship similar to the US. The Romans who settled and intermarried with Gauls became Gallo-Roman and spoke a Gaulish dialect of Roman. Think of how many regional dialects are in the US and UK. The process started with Hadrian who took power away from the Italian elites. By your logic the Roman State should have ended with Trajan since he was from Hispania instead of Italy. The actual Romans living at the time saw Gallo-Romans, Illyrio-Romans, etc as regular Romans. They saw themselves as Romans. Your logic makes no sense here as the actual Romans would disagree with you.
Using India is a bad example. India was never Anglicized in the same manner as other provinces. The British Empire never really had a set of universal citizenship like the Roman Empire did either. Something like a Dominion of Canada or South Africa staying as a part of Britain would be a better example since these were anglicized provinces of the British Empire. But Comparing Britain to Rome is comparing apples and oranges.
@@justinpachi3707 - Only in the late period, after the Caracalla Edict. Earlier they saw themselves as Roman subjects (not citizens, big difference) and at best as wannabe Romans trying to access to the privileges of Roman citizenship. This is very clear-cut, just browse Wikipedia (or your choice of source) for "Roman citizenship".
Your choice of terms such as "Gallo-Roman" is a reference to historian's categories, which refer in essence to very late imperial or even post-imperial concepts. In general terms and for the most time of the Empire's existence, Gauls and Romans were different things, even after Gauls became subjects of Rome and were gradually Romanized. When we say "Gallo-Roman" we mean "Gauls (or their serfs, who were not even properly Gaulish) acculturated by Romanization" but not "proper Romans" at all, not until the late era and even then.
India is not a bad example, especially if we compare with Greater Greece (alias Eastern Roman Empire, alias Byzantium), where Romanization was equally shallow. India at least does use English as culture and common language, while Byzantium reached a point in which it didn't even use Latin anymore (what for?) I use India and not Kenya or Nigeria, because it is still somewhat "empire-sized" and instead of the USA or Australia because it was never heavily colonized (something the Romans didn't do to that extent anywhere, not even in Baetica). Canada is too non-native to be comparable: there was nothing like that in the Roman Empire: it has to be something native but partly acculturized, India fits the bill, even if all comparisons have unavoidable limitations. It's not even like Mexico: it's rather like Philippines!
Byzantines weren't a thing. They were still the Roman empire and referred to themselves as such and were called as such by everyone else. Byzantine is just a moniker based off the area called Byzantium and was named in like the 1800s.
The Byzantine were frauds.
It’s a thing now though. It’s what the eastern empire is most commonly know as today. Thus he referred to them as Byzantine, he has to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible.
@@MrAmhara you high or just stupid?
No, in Europe we used to call them "the Greeks, the Greek Empire, the Greek Emperor".
For the medieval man the idea that a bunch people who didn't write nor speak Latin were "true Romans" was utter nonsense
By about the the late 5th Century, when the Eastern Romans stopped using Latin as a second language at all, that is when they transitioned into what westerners viewed as a culture apart from themselves. This is understandable in that the Romans were no longer what they once were either.
I live in Rome and even now, it hasn't recovered its former glory
One day it will...I hope
But it is fantastic to wander around and look and dream about how it looked like
@@mikkenieminen9603 you still sort of can in the centre of the city
It will hardly ever do. Italy had that period in which it was as advanced as the East but bordering less organized nations by the West and the North, in which it could rise to glory by conquering the latter first, and subjugating the former later with that expanded base of power. Otherwise it was always in between East and West and was never too important (except in the Renaissance, but then only culturally).
@@LuisAldamiz yeah
If 476 AD is an artificial creation of historians, then so is the term “Byzantine.” The “Byzantine Empire” was the Eastern Roman Empire.
Love your channel, fantastic contents.
The end was poignant to say the least...:(
Interesting history!!!😊👍❤
Good video. I've always wondered what just... happened to the manpower of Rome aside from the Germanic integration we always hear about. Thanks for helping shed some light on it.
The Republic could apparently summon up new armies almost instantly.
What made The Empire different?
dude, I like your videos
To many outdated concepts are mentioned in this video as those reasons.Things modern scholarship predominantly criticize from good reasons.
Could you provide some examples?
@@tonythesopranos5310 Like treating the Eastern Empire as something different, not seeing the continuity and the evolution of the army which took place there.
@@tonythesopranos5310 I will reply in two parts(2nd I will take time to wrote later),to make it easier to read and also becase too long text would be authomatically seen as "spam" by CZcams protective mechanisms.
For the start-video is also saying things that are true but apart from these it had also many imperfect or directly incorrect.
-It is true that during late antiquity barbarians were recruited in the Roman army much more often and in bigger numbers BUT:
-it was not new phenomenon.It was alway a thing especially in imperial Roman army to some degree(for example already Marcus Aurelius sent over 5000 such troops to guard Britain)
-Situation since 2nd half of the 4th century had to be examined partially independently.Ironically video is about western army but it speaks for example about what Eastern Emperor Theodosius I (only shortly and later ruling also in the west)did in eastern half of the Empire(after defeat at Adrianople) and what affected mainly Eastern forces.
Chief misconception repeated here which was a core argument for old romanticizing scholarship is that about Barbarians recruited into Roman army being the main reason for the decline of the western army.Video directly says:
"...there was no standardization in training or discipline.They seems to give up at the slightest set back and many were known to abandon their posts.They also could not be prevented from pillaging and looting...tribesmen may have been fighting for the Roman army but they were not fighting for Rome,which few if any had ever seen themselves..."
Completely everything said here is superbly incorrect and like crystalically clear repetition of popular romanticizing concepts of early modern historians.
-Firstly it is completely faslse information that there were no standardization in training and discipline.If soldier of Barbarian origin entered Roman service he was,as any other person native Roman or not,subjected to military training and discipline measures.And contrary to another very popular myth Roman army of that time was not untrained nor without discipline(nor was earlier Roman army perfect machine where there were no problems with discipline).
The other paragraphs says... "They seems to give up at the slightest set back and many were known to abandon their posts.They also could not be prevented from pillaging and looting..."
What "they"?On what example is this idea based on?What "many"?Soldiers of barbarian origin fought pretty well-which was among chief reasons why the were recruited in the Roman army in the first place.We have records of so many military campaigns conducted in time where several Roman soldiers were of Barbarian origin and yet in absolute majority of these Roman army had won and its soldiers performed pretty well in sharp contrst to what is said in the video.Narrator goes further saying "...They also could not be prevented from pillaging and looting...".
Of course they could be and most of the time they were.Sometimes soldiers get out of control but that is not anyhow different to times of earlier Roman army.
..."tribsmen may have been fighting for the Roman army but they were not fighting for Rome,which few if any had ever seen themselves..."
And how exactly this differ from previous centuries of the imperial army?Absolute majority in imperial Roman army never saw Rome or Italy and their main allegiance was already since times of Marius and Sulla to their commander and military unit.So how exactly is that new and different?
Another strange claim consist of this:
"...some sources state that by the 5th century the army no longer recorded the names and details of man who had enlisted in the army."
Again I ask what sources?Procedur of giving name of enlisted person into official list continued to be very basic thing to do and from very good reasons-Money.Every sane commander and even more so a Roman state was deeply interrested in knowing whom it gives salary.In fact even in case some soldier died we know from preserved records that very popular form of corruption was to kept his name in military register as he was still alive so that this dead person former officers could take salary meant to that person for themselves.Not recording names in military register would meant voluntarily strip itself from being paid.Nobody sane would do that and military registers are still regularly mentioned in works of that time.
@@paprskomet
Excellent post. This video is full of pseudo - explanations which explain nothing. It appears the Army gradually collapsed because the Imperial Government could no longer pay it. Something the video does occasionally allude to.
But what was the reason for this fiscal failure?
The standard explanation is probably the effective defection of the senatorial class but I wonder if this is at all convincing.
@@alanpennie8013 Well-yeah,western army was mostly destroyed by mismanagement from the side of the state.Finances became huge problem mainly after Westerners lost Africa and although remarkably strong effort was made to recover it in which both sides of the empire joined for the last time expedition involving as many as 100 000 soldiers(extrenely high number for usual expeditionary armies of that time) it sadly ended in total fiasco and it almost bankrupted even Roman East who consequently had to recover from financial dysaster for many decades.
Subscribed
A video on Jordanes Getica and Tanausis
Maybe nobody told them diversity is a strength. :v
So rome in the west collapsed from multiculturalism in the population and army........ wow, that the same thing that we are suffering from right now!
This video in no way points directly to the "collapse" of the Roman army but sticks to generalizations...save your time watching this video!
But if anyone is really interested in why the Roman Army collapsed here are two main points to consider. First political will and cohesion started back to the first Emperor Augustus. Once Rome started down the path of tyranny it would only be a matter of time when less capable emperors ascended; History notes 4 good emperors throughout Imperial Roman times--fact is there where about 87 in total. More often the rise of one emperor brought economic and social instability
Second, Roman economics being primary the cause for the Roman Army collapse. Early Republic and Imperial Rome grew out of conquest. As fewer civilization with wealth remained to challenge Rome less and less new wealth was added but the expenses of the empire remained. The tax system and tax levies in the conquered territories where the responsibilities of appointed governors which left open vast opportunities for corruption; as in many cases local wealth from the territories fueled would-be new emperors to attempt to seize Rome. Nevertheless taxes seldom would reach the heart of Rome (moving silver/gold) is itself a major undertaking. Compounding the problems of finance was the fact Rome failed to astablish long term military infrastructure of training and equipping of units. The quality of requires fell off as well as the equipment.
In early Republic period, the average soldier was heavily armored and where semi-professionals. Marius solved manpower shortage and the momentum of conquered wealth further fueled arms and equipment with a fully professional army reaching its heights under Trajan...future Emperors where able to further expand the Roman Armies capabilities using other nations specialty troops but as a whole the Armies under Trajan where at their peek. Yet no real system was in place to provide a reserve of reinforcements or replacements--again the result of poor economic structures to sustain depot-battalions (modern term). Warfare for the empire became profitless wars of continuous conflicts from tribes, internal politics, and other nations. Where once Caesar's legions could carry themselves against many times their numbers with hardened and discipled troops, future commanders lead armies far less capable in maneuver warfare or disciple to attack/defend as required nor were they as well equipped. The legionary wearing segmented steel armor being replaced with a man holding a shield and a long spear--being in fact the same type of troops as the Roman army had conquered over the centuries
That's a reasonable criticism. IMO it has more to do with the destruction of the Roman "middle class", both in Italy and in the provinces. A process that was already under way when the Empire was founded but that culminated with the proto-feudal Diocletian reforms, after which only feudalism was possible sooner or later.
@@LuisAldamiz Success of Rome did kill of the middle class before the time of Augustus (slave replaced the farmers of Italy and most of who where the backbone of Old Republic armies)
But under Marius the Roman Armies could come from the "head count" citizens instead of the middle class...both a liability and asset for the Roman army (the armies could be bigger but where politically dangerous for stability)
Sulla's use of his army on Rome (Republic times) should have been a wake up call to all Romans the dangers of "owning" a private army. But instead commanders owning armies was the natural progression to a Caesar and what fallowed
OF course there is philosophical arguments that the changing mind sets of the people both upper and lower class eroded civic belief in the state--disenchantment in the idea of Roman values finished off the will and drive to maintain the state where the root causes...but considering the kind of capital and organization it takes to maintain an empire, its most likely the weight of the empire itself crushed Rome
It’s a 5 minute video dumbass, that only leaves time for generalizations.
i like music u pick for this video! true roman/illirian!
I love videos like this. You tell everything you needed in 5 minutes. When I see a video like this that is 15 minutes long, of course I won't watch it. You need more subs. Cheers.
Thanks! Tell you friends. ;)
It be like that sometimes
The romans never fell... I’m right here
Which one Byzatine or western Roman (catholic)
Can't be one
Bryan509 I’m half Greek (mother is from Sparta) and I’m half Italian. I am from both sides of the empire
It was truly the darkest night in Roman History. With Opposing warlords paid off to abandon the Mission of liberating from Terrany and Enslavement of Mankind.
The First Knight of She, entered the Roman Encampment. With a knack for Killing within 3 to 10 seconds I walked in Dressed as a Scout that was Lurking in Our Midst.
That 6 and a half Hour incursion ended in the Deaths and Mutilation of atleast 2 and a half legions. The another running off screaming for Mercy. Thier Heavy Horses were Liberated after the Catacpolts and Ballistas were destroied. Thier Champions Dead moments after i stepped into the war tent thier king sobbing...yielding to the other force...I explaining to He if they did not surrender there would never again be a drop of Roman Blood Upon the Earth.
As Such the Army became a Church that Slandered the Name of Him Who conquered Thier Army...in Scripture. Calling the God of War the Devil and So it Stuck that Him Who is the Vessel of the First Father that is Heaven Shall be Labeled the Devil...
-Lucifer
Land Owner of Aramaya and All of Your Countries
I appreciate your video, but I have to say, it's a bit incorrect. Most historians have refuted the Barbarization Theory, since there is no evidence to support that, and no logical reason. The WRE fell because of internal conflict and constant invasions, not because the army was less effective.
Historians actually say the late roman army was just as effective as in the Principate, maybe even more flexible, as everyone, barbarian or not, was trained in the same way, to be disciplined.
So once again, it's hard to hold an empire when everyone is fighting for power, and it's even harder to win battles when you also have all kinds of invaders at your door.
Good succinct criticism. I suspect that the collapse of The Western Empire and its army was highly contingent. It was more bad luck than anything else.
Started watching this with a critical eye, but it is actually very good. Some of the comments below are unfair. I you want a broad overview of the decline of the Roman army then watch this.
But what happened after the year of the fall of Rome?
What happened? All remained the same more or less, because Rome fell half a century earlier, between 407 (Vandals cross into Gaul) and 410 (Goths sack Rome). All the rest is residual Rome, including Byzantium.
Odoaker ruled Italy as king of the Nationes (all of the mercenary barbarians). Then came Theoderic in the name of his ostrogoths and in the name of the eastern empire. He defeated Odoaker and ruled Italy as an allied state to the byzantines. This is it roughly.
Arthurius was left in an excellent position indeed
Artorius or Artorious not Arthurius
@@kiritoisgod2215 why not arthyr or arthwr because those are also valid
@@jeck988 most likely he was Half Briton half Roman so Artorius or Artorious is more likely
What a sad and pitiful ending to the mightiest war machine the world had ever seen.
There wasn’t much of the Western Roman Empire left at this time.
Does anyone know any good books that go in-depth about life for Roman citizens following the fall of the empire? Accounts from Roman soldiers fending for themselves would be especially interesting.
Very little is known about this as for soldiers,much more about civilians-but BEWARE-you talk about "fall of the Empire" ignoring that empire did not fell,its entire eastern half was still alive and with that same army continuing in existence.Even at west it was not that simple.People living there(especially in Italy)had very little reasons to see deposition of Romulus as somethin that ended roman state in the west.We know they did not seen it like that.Most informations of that sort you ask on you will find in books about Ostrogotic Kingdom in Italy, and about Merovingian frankish realm.In all major barbarian kingdoms of the former Roman west Romans(that is guys from Roman origin families that still self-identified as Romans)were the majority of population and their representation in civilian and army structures of these states was very significant.There are also primary sources written by contemporaries but it is a hard work to pick up isolated informations in these as they are often of incidentall character like Procopius mention of communities in Frankish Gaul still exist in 6th century who continue to live in Roman style,with Roman traditions and even having army on Roman model.Some former western Roman army almost certainly continued active service even under new barbarian masters.
@@paprskomet Thank you man, I understand that Eastern Rome went on for another millennium, but I didn't know things were that complicated for Western holdouts. I wish there were more accounts on the subject, too bad we'll never know.
But I thought Limitanae, Palatina and Comitatenses are actually good? Can somebody explain?
They were actually good.There is no reason to doubt that.The only one who doubt it are usually fanboys of earlier Roman military who have none or only very cloudy idea about Roman army of late antiquity.
@@paprskomet These late Roman troops also gave birth to the feudalism in Europe.
@@ReviveHF You probably mean that late antiquity Roman military ranks gave origin to many feudal titles of nobility but feudalism itself had its origin not so much in the Roman army as such but in Roman state reforms made majoraly between Diocletian and Constantine.These two basically created,with good intentions,what eventually evolved in medieval feudalism.
Who is going to be motivated to fight for a society whose traditions have been completely eroded? Imagine if the West was completely femenize and masculine vitrues such as courage and tradition was looked down upon, who would be motivated to fight well.
I thought this was a simple "Barbarization of the army" nonsense but thankfully it wasn't.
The Roman army changed a lot after Emperor Severus died, and they were at least we'll enough after the Crisis. The Roman army after the tetrarchy was more of an anti-insurgency army that barely worked for a reason. The emperors were more afraid of ambition than invasion. What's the use of well trained legions if they're used against you. Make a mobile reactionary corps for defending the borders but not powerful enough to kill empires.
Principate Armies were infantry based ,heavily disciplined and greater than none at their job but sucked against horse archers. Dominate armies are Horse based armies with a good enough infantry but not in huge numbers.
As you can see from the above, they are different in composition, focus, and doctrine. The former was meant for a grueling steam roller while the later required finesse due to the way their riders and infantry were treated. Good luck beating the Principate armies in a set piece battle and good luck beating the dominate when raiding Rome's frontiers because they are bloody fast.
But the key point here is that Rome changed a lot. It's politicians used diplomacy more often than needed and neglected their armies that corruption and late pay was such a problem even during Justinian's time Flavius Belisarius found garrisons that mutinied because somebody promised them better pay. You won't find willing Romans due to the bad conditions and plagues that Rome decided to be a lot less racist and thought "Those barbarians are quite promising" hence decided to instead buy entire tribes because those tribes are more willing to fight.
Those barbarians either became foederati who fought with their own command structure or joined the regional armies and became comitatus or perhaps local Limitanei.
There's a reason why Germanic and barbarian mercs were hired by Romans for centuries, how about hiring entire tribes to fight for you? Sounds better innit? Besides considering that Rome can't afford to raise armies, severe depopulation, and a busted economy this would actually be quite enticing minus the Roman xenophobia towards barbarians. That same xenobia likely caused Adrianople when the local governor mishandled the gothic refugee crisis after the Huns came knocking. Treating people as subhumans never goes well now does it.
Tldr: adaptation, roman pride, depopulation, options caused the Roman army to change and regress.
Rome was so powerful, that the only thing that truly destroyed them, was themselves.
Haha, just no.
2:49 what is the origin of this Swastika? On his thigh.
60 trillion
Good eye.
I saw that too. Whats up with that, right?
@@junjungatbos3548 I need to know
@@kanyekubrick5391 looks it up, the Swastika is a very old Icon, used through out the northern hemisphere (seems to be less common in the southern), one explanation for this is that it seems a long time ago a comet came close to the earth close enough to have it's jets visible and in this case four of them, and this was largely visible in the northern hemisphere (theirs supposedly Chines records of Comets with this appearance). In any case it seems to be often taken as a good luck symbol in most cultures that use it, further more it is also often seen associated with astronomical uses (like the north pole or Sun), not to mention Religious ones. It also seems to be used in many Greco-Romen building decorations, it seems as it Tessellates well.
One of the more well known surviving examples of the famous Roman Shield actually has the Swastika on it (the one from Dura-Europos -Syria).
It just played itself out, life.
empires are not built on peace and love.
Caesar was merciful and almost considered himself a liberator of the Gauls (oppressed by the Galish oligarchies), even Augustus was so frustrated by the nastiness of the Cantabrian War that he denied himself a triumph, as it considered the war maybe necessary but utterly disgusting. In any case, after Augustus the Empire stagnated, it was not anymore expanding and thus it growingly turned to exploit its own peoples, not just the provincials but also the Italians. Having abandoned all republican balance and turned into a military dictatorship, in the end it produced oriental tyrants like Diocletian who destroyed the whole state and inaugurated the Dark Ages.
Also scientific research and exploration stagnated after Rome took over the Mediterranean World: the library of Alexandria was burnt, no more attempts at circumnavigation of Africa were made until 1500 years later. Rome closes the light of Antiquity, it's not yet the Dark Ages but it's the corridor that leads to them.
Luis Aldamiz
What? That’s bad history you’re spouting. There was no 1,000 year Dark Age after Rome fell. Many advances in science and mathematics occurred in the Middle Ages. Plate armor is one of these inventions. Better metal working and farming tools were also invented. The Eastern Roman Empire was also the most advanced European power for most of the Middle Ages up until the 13th century. The Carolingians presided over the Carolingian Renaissance after the actual Dark age of the 7th and 8ty centuries. The Eastern Roman Empire under the Macedonians and Komnenoi also had their own periods of cultural renewal and scholarship. Look up Constantine VII. The Roman Empire did not stagnate after Augustus. This makes no sense. Rome was primarily a trading empire based in the Mediterranean if it stagnated then that means its demise would have rapidly ensued instead of taking 500 years in the West.
The library of Alexandria was a joke compared to actual science pioneered in the Middle Ages. Many classical forms of medical knowledge like the 4 humors was proven false. Plus the library of Alexandria had been well past its prime during the reign of Caesar.
The late Republican system was doomed to failure. As soon as any man with an army could march on Rome the balance was broken. It was also a plutocracy that neglected the other Romans. The city of Rome at its height during the Empire has 1,000,000 people and many of its marble buildings were constructed during the reign of the Emperors. Constantinople was the largest city in Christendom and held 500,000 at its peak and was a very wealthy trading city and center of scholarship.
The whole idea of a Republic being some type of utopia while the Empire was a massive bad thing is a myth. The constant 150 years of anarchy was ended by Augustus. He ruled so well that no one wanted to go back to the Republic.
@@justinpachi3707 - OK, maybe is a bit less than 1000 years, as the Renaissance was kickstarted by Atheist Emperor Frederick II "Stupor Mundi" in the 13th century. In any case Europe would not fully recover from the Dark Ages until at least the French Revolution. Also most of those medieval advances you count on are imports from India and China via the Arabs or the Turco-Mongols, not really European developments as such.
The Middle Ages were indeed very "dark", in many cases we barely have a history to speak of, sources are scarce at least until the Carolingian era, fundamental scientific and philosophical manuscripts were erased to make room for absurd psalms and Biblical superstitions, it was like a "Mad Max" world of crazy warlords believing crazy ideas and working hard to rape Europe and raid the Europeans into slavery/serfdom. Only my country, Vasconia, stood for some time but even the Basques were dragged by force of the Franks and the Arabs into that fedualist madness whose foundations were established by megalomaniac Diocletian.
@@justinpachi3707 - The Roman Republic was no utopia, of course. Would we be discussing Athens, I may have a slightly different opinion, but Rome was always a quite disgusting oligarchic state, focused on the military, intermediate between Sparta and Athens maybe but closer to the former than to the latter if anything. However it was part of a wider "Hellenistic" world (including the Phoenicians to some extent) which was much more scientifically curious and surprisingly advanced at times. Rome contributed to the destruction of the Hellenistic "age of light" but it did so slowly, almost accidentaly.
However, while Caesar had a progressive land reform "Marian" agenda, Augustus and successors did not. The Principate is a return to Sulla-ism rather than to Caesarism-Marianism, even if it was Caesar who triggered it and Marius who set some of its foundations. There was never a land reform in Italy: the Principate evolved slowly but steadily into a totalitarian military dictatorship, but retained some appearance of Italo-Roman empire for the Italo-Romans until Caracalla and Diocletian. With Diocletian the transition to the final degenerate form of the Empire (the Dominate, the proto-feudal regime) was almost complete, only missing the last orientalizing, judaizing touch: Christianity. This was done as we know in the following century primarily by Constantine and Theodosius. It's probbaly not a coincidence that after the totalitarian decision to forbid freedom of thought and religion by Theodosius, the Empire finally collapsed in 407-10 (all the rest is anecdotal: the Empire was finished for good).
Luis Aldamiz
Keep in mind that paganism was a dead force by the time of Theodsius as it was lambasted by contemporary philosophers. Besides there was no universal pagan belief. The idea thar Greco-Romans were somehow more advanced than medieval humans is also false. Many Roman building techniques were improved upon in the renaissance. When the Roman Empire became Christianized it help unify the Empire more than anything. Besides Roman Law there was a conmon religion uniting everyone. This was the idea of the universal empire in Europe. I don’t know where you get the music that Rome was somehow this paradise with ideas like “free thought.” It was just as theocratic as the Christian Roman Empire. The Empire became worse off due to Theodosius because of the economy collapsing. Trade networks were disrupted as a result of the migrations. Rome had to recruit foederati because it couldn’t pay for regular troops. Also the late Roman army was just as competent as the classical army when under good leadership. It was evolved to fight different threats as the Romans weren’t dealing backwards tribes of the 1st and 2nd centuries. You should look up the Late Roman Army. This was the same army that Justinian used to reconquer the West.
The "Barbarization Hypotesis" has been debunked, especially by Hugh Elton's "Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350-425".
It began when the Sarmatians rode away and married into the Slavic tribes, who were their only ally from their beginning.
The Roman army in that age were not made of Roman citizens. A mercenary army not paid enough or loyal enough to fight for Rome.
A very practical and realistic answer👍
The end of the Roman Army came when that particular emperors(cant remember), made every one in the Empire(except slaves) a Roman citizen. It degraded the core of the Roman Army, the Legionnaires, the Italian Romans. After this law happened, you could not make the difference between the true Legionnaires and the auxiliaries.
That's indeed one part of the process: the vigor of the early empire, incl. late republic, was in its Italian national-imperialism. But by the time the empire (the military dictatorship) was inaugurated under Augustus, the Italian working classes had been subjected to massive impoverishment as well (Caesar believed he was fighting against that but with too many compromises for his dictatorship to actually work). The process of concentration of property and impoverishment of Italians and provincials alike continued through the empire but it was dramatically exacerbated by Diocletan proto-feudal reforms. After Diocletian being Roman was just a pain in the ass for everyone but a bunch of oligarchs, nobody would fight for Rome, neither Italians, nor provincials: they rather hated Rome instead. And thus Rome fell, sabotaged internally by everyone: the poor because they were oppressed, the rich and the soldiers because they were greedy.
Luis Aldamiz
That’s not why Rome fell. It fell because of an economic collapse in the west as a result of the migration era disrupting trade in addition to plagued and civil wars. The Romans lacked the cash to pay their armies and thus recruited foederati. Many Romans only defected to the Barbarian Kings after the Central give collapsed in the 460’s. The new warlords and Kings offered them protection and they accepted. The Romans in the West also lost Africa their breadbasket and then immediately had to deal with the Hunnic onslaught that bankrupted them even more.
Where are you getting this bad history from? Gibbon? His work is seen by modern scholarship as biased and heavily outdated. Especially as he describes the Eastern Empire as schismatic Greeks despite the fact that it lasted longer than the classical and Western Empire.
@@justinpachi3707 Sorry man, neither you or Luis are right. Because both are right. Only the sum of a multitude of factors collapsed western rome empire.
That would be Caracalla, whose edict made every freeman a Roman citizen.
In the end the Roman army did not have Romans it that simple.
In time debateted here Roman army still consisted majoraly from recruits born in the Empire.The only exception being its western half and only during its very last decades of existence.
Why the robotic voice over
Step 1: send army to foreign lands
2. Lose to the barbarians
3. Stop their army via diplomacy and treaties
4. Dishonor treaties
5. Lose against the barbarians you couldn't defeat before
6. Let barbarian soldiers into your weak army to fight other barbarians
7. Let different barbarians tribes to collaborate between them
8. Be surprised of how the tribes that you treason on, now treason you
9. Keep the slaughter to access the throne and have no effective adminstration and chain of command
10. After centuries of treason and murder to be the emperor, now no one wants to. The Empire is dead.
10a. Be the Eastern Empire and repeat Western's steps
11b. Replace Barbarians with proper organized Empires and declare wars instead of making peace.
But what happened with legions style warfare? Why nobody even East could reform legions as succeseful as they were?
Even if they had the money, resources, unity and centralized authority to do it again, it was simply outdated by that time. The old roman way of fighting with heavy infantry as its core was not sufficient enough to be SUPERIOR on the battlefield. Keep in mind that the medieval Byzantine army and the changes they made to the army was still one of the best fighting forces on earth, this video explained the early days of the western/eastern roman split, but later on they developed new armies that became a fierce fighting force that barely anyone could fully rival.
There's a reason eastern rome or "Byzantine empire" lasted roughly 1000 years, even though they were surrounded by enemies and vast persian empires to the east that had both more manpower and resources.
sad
Oh look! We’re making the same mistakes today! Learn from history ... what’s that?!
You should have used another term than Byzantine =/
the roman eventually refused to enlist in the army to defend their homes families.... eventually the state was forced to hire foreign mercenies who had no loyalty to anyone...So rome fell...
The battle of the frigidus river between the pagan western roman Empire and the christian byzantine empire destroyed the western part, transformed the next western emperors and generals as eastern roman empire puppets
Political chaos corruption greed decadence,
Mike Kemper- Sound Familiar!
What happened to their slaves
There was no fall, they just moved on.
I wish emperor zenor found a way to bring western Roman's to the east after the fall instead of abandoning them
Zeno not Zenor.And Zeno actually had ambition to rule in also in the west directly(he was an Emperor there nominally) and did not abandoned it.Several Eastern emperors were in fact helping to west(although sometimes also conducting selfish actions that were beneficial just for the east).To play more active role in the west was not in his might-he had hands full of problems in the east which isd not something that can be ignored.Moreover former west was still heavilly under influence of Roman Emperors in the east and large portions of people living there still considered themselves fully as Romans even under barbarian Kings some of which served officially(if not factually)as viceroys of Roman Emperors in Constantinople.And Justinian eventually reconquered larger portion of territory in the former Roman west than what last western Emperors rulled.
Jesus
😔 the world would have been better if those tribes would've interrogated with Roman society.
Integrated?
They made a military dictatorship and called it "empire". I'm surprised it lasted for so long.
My understanding is that until Caracalla and Diocletian, the Empire was an Italian colonial empire, thereafter it was just a land under the boot of the army, an army that was "Roman" only in name but that (with the partial exception of Greater Greece maybe) did not treat the rest o the empire any better anyhow. That's why Rome fell: because it did not work for the Romans, be them Italians or provincials, Romans hated Rome.
I’m sorry but this is inaccurate. The Empire of the Romans was seen and presented itself as the universal empire especially in the Late Anyiquity period. The provinces were romanized over time and brought into the fold. Trajan was an Iberia Roman and many Emperors were from Latin Speaking Illyria. Rome assimilated the various people’s within it.
The Empire lasted for over 1,500 years. The Eastern Empire survived for so long and assimilated various Slavic groups and others into it. The Empire fell because of political and economic circumstances. The Romans never had a proper succession system which facilitated ruinous civil wars that sapped manpower and drained the treasury. Combined with this the Germanic tribes adopted more Roman technology while the Sassanids emerged in the East and gave the Romans a run for their money.
The Empire was also more of a collection of city states and trading centers in the classical era while the hinterlands served to support those cities.
@@justinpachi3707 - Until Caracalla the Empire was 100% an Italian colonial empire: some provincials were given Roman citizenship status but they were a minority (on the other hand Italians had been granted citizenship since the Social War, so there was a general sharp disticntion between Roman citizens, basically Italians or their descendants, and provincials, subjects with nearly no rights). It is only after Caracalla that we begin to see "barbarian" (provincial) emperors like the despised Maximinus Thrax, precursor of that other decisive provincial military-rank emperor: Diocletian, who hated Rome so much that he almost died after visiting the city out of utter disgust. There is no absolute line, but if we have to draw one, I'd draw it at Diocletian (and so do historians when they differentiate between Principate and Dominate). Since Diocletian it is clear that the Roman Empire was not anymore properly Roman, just a toy for the semi-barbarian army.
Trajan the pedophile and Hadrian were from Baetica indeed but of Italian nobility, not native Iberians in any way. Baetica was the most colonized province by far, even more than Sicily, something that is still apparent in the genetic makeup of Andalusians, who tend toward Italy somewhat surprisingly. There were some other not-quite-provincial emperors before Caracalla, but all with Italian origins (and thus strong Latin culture and Italian "national identity").
The lack of "proper succession system" is characteristic of military dictatorships, which the Roman Empire was without doubt. It was a system in which "might makes right", in which the Army ruled. We should not blame such system for the collapse of Rome when it was functional for so many centuries, it's part of the problem arguably but not the core issue: the core issue was that the Italian nation built by Rome (and by the Social War, after which Rome had to make major concesions, effectively creating Italy as a Latin nation) was weakened by its own Empire and particularly by its own way-too-powerful oligarchy. Romans/Italians eventually saw no or limited benefit into serving the Empire and they were replaced by "barbarians" (provincials first, true extra-imperial barbarians later). Italy lost itself to its own Empire and thus the Empire collapsed as new provincial emperors, notably Diocletian, despised Italy and Rome and moved the capital to Greater Greece.
Once this displacement to Greece was done, Rome (the West) was sentenced because the Western provinces served the interests of Italy but were rather irrelevant for Greece. Not just that: Italy had kept the Empire working thanks largely to the taxes collected in Greece and the other wealthy Eastern provinces, once the Empire was partitioned, this was not anymore the case and the Western Empire lacked the resources to confront major threats such as the one unleashed by the Hunnic invasion (but manifested mostly as Germanic invasions, Vandals and Goths notably). It was even unable to quell the Basque Bagauda or to retain Britannia at all. Greece (what you dare to call "(Eastern) Roman Empire") mostly just watched amused while it redirected the Goths to plunder Italy and Rome itself. 410, the year when Rome was sacked for the first time since Brennus, should be considered the effective year the Roman Empire collapsed, all the rest is pretend and extend, even Justinian.
So basically multicuralism destroyed Rome. Where can i see that happening again.
M. Bisonopolis- Multiculturalism never destroys society. The lack of Multiculturalism will destroy society. If a society does not have change, it will inherently die from bad genetics. This problem was rampant in the mid evil days from citizens having the children of their relatives.
@@maryjeanjones7569 yeah it's okay to mix with other similar white European folks. There's enough of us still to keep the genes healthy. But we don't need Africans, we don't need Arabs and we don't need Asians to survive.
@@m.bisonopolis3258 - I disagree. I know many and have worked with many from the countries you mentioned. Great respectful folks, very well educated and law abiding citizens. The world is a better place with lots of folks from Africa, Asia and Arabia.
It’s annoying to listen to others when they claim that the late Roman army was somehow better than the republican or imperial Roman army.
Overall it was. They finally began to increase their cavalry and projectile troops. They still weren't the best at it, but definitely helped counter out the tactics against the more versatile Sassanids and Huns.
UncannyRicardo overall it wasn’t because it’s obvious that the more disciplined romans of the republican and imperial era were far, far more bloodthirsty and willing to kill their enemies. From secondary sources of the late Roman army, they were described to be a cowardly militia that were very diverse.
Secondary sources that described the republican and imperial romans in war were seen as badass motherfuckers. For example, despite being the underdog, the romans put King Pyrrhus to shame even when he did win two victories against them.
During the siege of Jerusalem, there were stories of legionnaires that were of Syrian descent (they weren’t even Latin) that snuck off into the night, and conducted a successful suicide mission in pushing the rebels back.
The Late Roman Army May have had the tools to maintain western Rome, but did they really have the “men” to maintain it. You do realize that it takes men to wield weapons of war don’t you?
It’s obvious that the warriors of the Late Roman Army were not up to the challenge of preserving the empire. Their predecessors however, their glories are forever; they were the better killers, because they had the true desire to kill the enemy.
@@ivancolonna7520 I mean to each there own, but I just think that's more of a romantic idealization of the early roman armies. Yes, the earlier army's had a very attack oriented approach...and it was efficient. But let's not forget the earlier armies had some nasty defeats from Hannibal to the imperial era. The Dacians were a constant match for the early armies, they suffered defeats. It took Trajan the entire might of the empire to bring them down. And it would be up to the late roman army of Constantine to successfully reconquer it after it had been lost.
The late army defeated many barbarians and tell the end was still winning most battles. Both armies in my view had great runs, and I think the late army had to adapt to new strategies.
UncannyRicardo damn... pot to kettle
Just a bunch of generalizations and some of them even wrong
Multi- kulti and christianity
Micke Nieminen learn proper english, kraut
Micke Nieminen Multi What? And Christianity? How did Christianity cause the fall of the army?
Why Roman Empire declined and finally fell? Because the ever declining number of genetic Romans. Quite easy.
It's more a lot more complicated than that, but sure, copy and paste your modern xenophobic views on ancient Rome.
It wasn't about genes, but about culture.
Most of the Italian peninsula wasn't Roman, just like at it's zenith. They kept absorbing several tribes, ethnic groups to their way of life.
It was Trump