Were the Barbarian invaders of Rome really so peaceful and friendly?
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 09. 2022
- 🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
🤗 Join our Patreon community: / maiorianus
Or become an official Maiorianus member on CZcams: / maiorianus461
🤗 One-Time Donation?
- PayPal: paypal.me/Maiorianus
- Bitcoin: bc1qv4lsfsplvfecrrgvmfclhga28we7mvh9563xdj
🔗 Share the video with anyone who might be interested (it helps a ton!)
👍 Subscribe to our videos FOR FREE: czcams.com/users/Maiorianus4...
📚 The main source for this video is the book "The Fall of Rome" by Bryan Ward-Perkins: amzn.to/3FXeDNg
📚 My favorite novel about the late Roman Empire, "Julian" by Gore Vidal: amzn.to/3mZwOdJ
📚 BEST BOOKS ON ROMAN URBAN HISTORY: 📚
1. "History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages" by Ferdinand Gregorovius amzn.to/3yOvjEd
2. "Rome: Profile of a City, 312-1308" by Richard Krautheimer amzn.to/3yyChgp
3. "Rome: An Urban History from Antiquity to the Present" by Rabun Taylor amzn.to/322ClsZ
These are all excellent books if you are like me, absolutely fascinated by the transition of Rome from late antiquity to the early medieval period.
The wonderful background music is by Adrian von Ziegler: • Relaxing Roman Music -...
🎦 FILMING EQUIPMENT WE USE: 🎦
Webcam: amzn.to/3yFSFvu
Microphone: amzn.to/3e2ZFsW
Disclosures: Some links in the description are affiliate links which means that if you purchase something by clicking on one of them, your host Sebastian will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. In this way you will be supporting the channel to improve the video production quality at no extra cost to you.
📬 Contact us: maiorianus.sebastian@gmail.com
#Maiorianus - Věda a technologie
A special shout-out to all the people who recently donated to us via Super Thanks 🤗:
🧡 @Richard Horne
🧡 @jceepf
🧡 @Xiang Chen
🧡 @Jason Cuculo
🧡 @julius williams
🧡 @Mauro Merali
🧡 @Rank of Master
🧡 @JeffTownUSA
🧡 @Eisenpfosten
🧡 @Squire Waldo
🧡 @Ruufus De Leon
🧡 @David Keane
🧡 @Kevin Gomez
🧡 @scrot
🧡 @Xina Marie Uhl
🧡 @Aaron Flynn
🧡 @Robert
🧡 @Gary Worthington
🧡 @howtorideahorse
🧡 @Franz Nowak
🧡 @(Ἰάσων) Sobek Lord of the Four Corners
🧡 @michael porzio
🧡 @David Batlle
Thank you so much for your generous support and for believing in us 🙏
Your host, Sebastian
so they think the east was in constant war with the islamic invaders, but the western empire was filled with peaceful Germans?
Germanic peoples are good people. Have some respect
Question is: How well did the Romans treat their foederati?
Defending Rome as some sort of benigng super power...
Is forgetting exactly how Rome "defended" itself to expand its borders and slaves to conquer.
Nothing in Rome could ever exist without the slave labor of those "barbarians" taken in as slave labor. No building. No monument. No stadium, or circus war raised by roman wage earners. These were built by forced labor from those evil barbarians Rome had to defend themselves against until the Romans subjugated and enslaved entire peoples.
Not to forget the fact that Rome committed ecocide by practically exterminating the Berber lion among other wild life in conquered areas to entertain the social welfare recipients - the plebs of Rome.
What happened to Rome and the Romans is no worse than what the Romans did to others.
So barbarians built the wall, the buildings, the roads, the aqueducts. These were not built by Roman geniuses with super powers.
While Rome destroyed cultures and peoples-
The roman church destroyed knowledge, and tolerance.
The concept of Rome with an emperor with a divine right to rule is a myth.
I think your point about how the Gothic crisis really started is the key: They were looking for a place to settle, and the Romans had integrated tribes like them into the borderlands before. This time, though, they were mistreated so badly that they struck back and that cycle led to the wars. It's hard to guess what would have happened if Rome hadn't mishandled the entire situation
If you are talking about Adrianople in 376, there were too many migrants to properly allow in, in the typical fashion. There was just not enough food in the local province to handle this increase. All Valens really wanted was the extra 20k troops to help fight in his eastern Persian wars. What he got was over 100k mismanaged and hungry migrants, who only revolted because they were starving to death (in addition to being mistreated).
There is no outcome that would have been different.
Numbers and the fact they were entering as an entire nation under their own leaders are important considerations. This was not the normal practice, not on that scale, and the empire seemed demonstrably incapable of assimilating them. Valens would have been better off securing key locations and letting the VGs starve or, perhaps, being more proactive and effective in getting rid of them instead of waiting.
Really? We’re the Vandals mistreated? What about the Huns? Were they mistreated?
They didn't have enough supplies for that many Visigoths. Stop blaming the Romans
@@TonyFontaine1988 Do you know the history? Do you know that Ammianus Marcellinus wrote in 378 A.D. that the Romans forced the Goths, in order to get food, to sell their children into slavery, at the rate of one child for one dog? The Romans deserve a lot of blame for mishandling a bad situation...
The fact that it`s even debated at all is insane all evidence points out that the period of those invasions and the one directly after it were insanely Brutal. We can point to where battles took place and which cities were sacked.
Europe is facing new invasion by those radical Islamists. what will happen to Europe once more if we allow these migrants in our land. Remember this
These communists are destorying Europe
Way to much modern politics and ideals are being inserted into the history of the past, problem is some scholars are now more into pushing their own agenda or politics into the past to make it fit their desired version of it. Than accept the reality that the Past was a violent place, where current values did not exist.
They sacked multiple cities, so I don’t get why some consider it peaceful, maybe “relatively”, but “peaceful” is a really strong word.The wars also with the huns, really throws that hypothesis away.Correct me if I’m wrong
Shhhhh, quiet dude, you're killing the peace and love vibe. Hands across the water, hands across the sky and all that.
Late Roman history has really gotten into a sterile cycle of "no it was peaceful cultural integration" versus, "no it was the apocalypse on steroids". Clearly there was ample violence, institutions collapsed, commerce collapsed, money economy collapsed, demography changed, poverty grew, serfdom-ish forms grew, and the metaphorical flag on the door and the names of a lot of the ruling class changed, as would have the maps if they used maps like ours. OTOH, there was also collaboration, transformation of institutions over time, preservation of some economic forms and money economy, demographic and cultural consistency as well as change, and effort by the new rulers to consolidate with many of the old and to create new forms and symbols of a hybrid nature. Plus the whole transformation took centuries and the worst of the economic collapse wasn't until the 7th century anyway.
Do you have a book to recommend?
Personally think it was depending on where you where in the western empire when it fell.
Not in britannia it collapsed completely in the 4th century my source brian ward perkins The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization
The franks were some of the best Roman allies. Franks even served as generals in the Roman army.
You were lucky indeed if you were in the end took over by the Franks, They were harsh at first but quickly settled into a functioning new kingdom. The Poor souls under Vandal rule though now they did not have it easy at all. Thank god the Eastern Empire in the end did crush them in the 500s.
@@Historyfan476AD Indeed
Why would a history fan put 476 in their historically themed username???
@@H3LLS3NT4SS4SS1N It's a commonly thought of year when the Western Roman Empire finally ceased to exist. notice the ad in my name.
It also suggests a preference to roman history, and well it suited better with my older profile pick of a sunset on Hadrian's wall.
Until they weren’t
"It has been said that although God cannot alter the past, historians can"- Samuel Butler
Very nice saying, and also very true, yes. Indeed, history is always but an interpretation of the past. So we must be careful to interpret correctly.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian To Be Observed with POV and Cultural Standards of Time Period of Relevant Historical Moment !!!
This is exactly the same issue I have with those historians that claim that the Germanic tribes that settled in Brittain were peaceful and no confrontation tool place. That makes no sense: sure, some angles, saxons, jutes and frisians may have found a peaceful settlement in the island, but Gildas truly tells us that there were many battles (skirmishes) between the natives and the migrators. He was writing 100 years after all these events, but he was born around 500, so his fathers and grandparents were alive when all of this occurred. So he is not recording legends, but things that actually happened a generation prior to his birth.
Exactly to a point.
To call the Anglo-Saxon migration as peaceful, might as well claim the English came to North America peacefully
@@noahtylerpritchett2682
Next time historians will claim that the Normans never truly invaded England, they just settled there peacefully.
Or that Julius Caesar peacefully settled romans in Gaul.
@@mercianthane2503 or that Anatolia and the Levant was peacefully Turkified and Arabized respectively.
I just can't wait when they claim new world colonization was peaceful.
It´s just so they can say it´s all fine that major British cities like London are now minority native.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682
I can see that coming. Something like:
"Spanish conquest was just an exaggeration. Spanish just stumbled in America and decided to settle down and have a peaceful life with the natives."
Because there were two world wars fought against Germany (Germans were referred to as "the Huns" by the Allies in both world wars) the view of the Germanic invasions of Rome were serving the propaganda purposes of the then present era. Now that a huge influx of migrants to Europe (and the USA for that matter) is occurring, the "peaceful" nature of the Germanic migrations are being emphasized. History is rarely, if ever, objective. Maiorianus, thanks for a balanced and objective view of the invasions of the late empire.
Hmmmm 🤔🤔🤔
Yeah, I was about to say that, but found your comment first. In antiquity most mass migrations included invasions of either conquering, or migrating because your land was conquered, sometimes both. Modern Era migrations are now way more pacific, or appear to be, so everyone shines this view into history.
History can be very objective, but it would then be very sterile. Your bank book is a history too, but nobody would pay to read it.
This is why I always say that the most important thing an historian of any sort should do, must do, is to try and relate only what the evidence suggests, and not color the narrative with personal opinion or political agenda.
Excellent analysis of how contemporary historians insert their world view into their conclusions about bow the past really was.
I'm living on a fixed income now, but as soon as I can, I intend to start contributing to your channel. Late Antiquity in the Christian and Muslim worlds is where I "live" - in my mind's eye.
Same can be said of prior historians. Rome in particular was almost fetishized in the 19th century to justify the European empires of the time. One advantage today is we have better access to source materials and easier access to historical literature so if something “doesn’t seem right” we can accurately critique them.
7:12 Speaking of Augustine of Hippo, there's an italian mini-series of the life and last days of the famous philosopper (who is played by Franco Nero) before his death by the Vandals called "Restless Heart: The Confessions of Saint Augustine". It's pretty good, actually
czcams.com/video/jGbN_Gp-GDY/video.html
I agree with the points of this video.
A few years ago an author pointed out another point adpect of Roman population replacement. After the defeat of Carthage, the Roman males were required for long military service surpressing civil wars in Spain. This period lead to problems like the collaspe of small Roman farms and the rise of rich powerful individuals that sized the land and used slaves.
Another aspect of that time was that slaves would assume the names of their masters when the men died during military operations. The authors contended that the genetic make up of the republic changef during that time. The authors researched grave yards of the period.
The genetic make up changed how exactly and why?
❤
Grug tribe very peaceful when wipe out Oog tribe. Only use club. No use gun. Peaceful.
Very interesting video. I always believed that the Germanic migrations would have been a mixture of peaceful and violent, but that violence was certainly not rare. Suddenly having to share your land with newcomers could lead to tensions all through history.
As native of Southern Scandinavia (Denmark) it often strikes me how my homeland and ancestors started many migrations, often violent, and with great impact on the European world (Note: Some of the origins below can be disputed).
Cimbrii - Himmerland (Jutland)
Teutons - Thy Syssel (Jutland)
Vandals - possibly "Vandal Syssel"? (Vendsyssel, Northern Jutland)
Goths - West Götaland to East Götaland to Gotland, Sweden (possibly originating in Northernmost Jutland?)
Burgundians - Burgundarholm (the island of Bornholm)
Herulii - Danish isles
Jute - Jutland
Angles - Jutland (south)
Saxons - Jutland (southernmost, south of the old "Danish" border wall "Dannevirke")
Danes - Denmark (originally from Sweden)
One gets the feeling that the "Viking Age" is really a one thousand year old tradition of raiding and migration.
So danes were Swedes this whole time???
@@xanshen9011 Originally (not all the time), yes and no. They were neighbours to the Swedes, then they moved.
But 2.000 years ago their language would have been the same, and about the same as their Germanic cousins further down in modernday Germany; they would all have understood eachother.
1.000 years later Scandinavians could still speak with Anglo-Saxons of the British Isles without an interpreter, whereas they already couldn't understand the Franks without and interpreter.
Even today people from North-Eastern Scotland and North-Western Jutland can cross the North Sea, walk straight into a bar and understand the locals (a pint of beer helps immensely on understanding eachother).
@@larsrons7937 I know I was just joking because I know the swedes and danes got a rivalry going on
I'm a History grad with a particular interest in Late Antiquity - and I have to say I really enjoy this channel. So refreshing to have an alternative to a lot of the revisionist historiography that is so popular nowadays.
It's interesting they were so positive in the post-war era, about the downfall of the Empire. It's a cliche now that anything that challenges the established order is seen as 'largely peaceful.'
The problem that the Romans never solve: Allowing the tribes from faraway lands to settle in their territories. Yesterday, it was the Germanic tribes in Hispania and Gaul. A few days later, it's the Turkic tribes in Anatolia and the Balkans.
The Turks weren't allowed to move into Anatolia, the Romans lost a big battle against them, then proceeded to pull out their remaining forces from the border so they can have a civil war which made it possible for Turkish settlers to migrate unopposed.
@@hazzmati I know that. What I meant is that the Romans were always preoccupied with troubles in the Balkans or trying to prevent the West from coming and do something similar to the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 again. So they never had enough time to reclaim Anatolia from the Turkic Beyliks.
Yes....they also keep peacefully sacking from the Rhine all the way to Iberian peninsula
455 was really Peaceful for Rome, 410 was bad but at least it was controlled to a degree but 455 ripped the heart out of Rome, Oh and the Vandals were so kind and generous when they turned up in North Africa.
A fiery but mostly peaceful sacking.
To be fair, some tribes were simply given land and didnt loot anything fpr the matter. But then, there are many examples like the vandals too...
@Unfriendly atheist all tribes looted. Some just chose to simply take the land and rule over it rather than sack it and move on
@Unfriendly atheist everyone at the time was commiting atrocities. Germans were savages and romans were hypocrites
A wonderful introducing & Exact -accurate evaluation of this Historical matter ( Historical Relationships Between Roman Empire & Germanic tribes
Thank you and Much Love from the Philippines.
Excellent video and great point of view about this subject. You even compare these old event with our current events....Wonderful comparison. Your channel is full of great content. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with all of us. Gracias a usted ;-)
As someone with a masters in history I think it’s important to say that no one is more aware of bias than the historian. It can never be perfectly objective (otherwise why would anyone write the next book) but scholars really try to get as close to the ground as they can. When something doesn’t sound right however it’s important to check the sources and try to understand how that scholar came to the conclusion they did. Also it’s important to never rely on any one scholar for the complete story. And finally, and this is the worst part, remember that the vast majority of history is lost to us, we are hacking together what we can from maybe 1% of what is left to us…. In this case it appears that some of the settlement was peaceful and some of it was not… as is usually the case for such things.
Happy I found you again! Love this. Thanks
This video does a good job of contesting narratives of Barbarian pacifism without promoting the comparably unnuanced opposite view, but I feel like it oversimplifies the context of historical perceptions of the Migration Period a bit. He mentions how modern political ideas have an influence on how the period is framed by modern writers, but with regards to the pre-WWII consensus, he seems to imply it was entirely down to Europe having more experience of war, when there were also strong social and political influences on how people interpreted the past then as there are now. The Freeman quote gives a particularly clear example; the idea that the Anglo-Saxons eradicated the Britons entirely or almost entirely, and that this was a good thing, was actually a major part of English narratives of racial superiority, rather than just being Freeman's take on a broader consensus about Barbarian brutality. It was commonly believed among the English elite of the time that Celts were an inferior race to Germanic peoples, so the narrative that the Anglo-Saxons had eradicated the Britons was important for claiming that the English upper classes were of pure Germanic ancestry; hence, there was a strong ideological component to the eradication narrative. The same goes to varying degrees for some other ideas about Barbarian invasions, but the English example is particularly relevant given the use of the Freeman quote. There's also the matter of different sources being used - older historians relied more on Roman written sources, whereas 20th century historians had far more archaeological data to draw on, and evidence from these different types of sources presents different pictures if you only use one or the other. So yeah, decent video in terms of its main point, but I feel it glosses over some major facets of the historiography by only focusing on experience with war as the dividing factor.
Beautiful take about this. As always, love your videos
Keep up the excellent work Maiorianus.
They bringing crime, they bringing pants...
This is the most interesting fall of Rome topic, really deserves 7+ figure views.
the reason why the germanic tribes even migrated to rome in the first place is because their original homes in Eastern Europe got destroyed by the huns so some of them fled to rome for safety
The music is so evocative
I love the points and evidence brought up here. But I would not say that these notions were not only questioned in our times. Henri Pirenne also viewed the Germanic invasions in a less devastating matter than Gibbons. I would love to hear your analysis between Edward Gibbons and Henri Pirenne as well as similar topics. I would be more than happy to pay for such an analysis
It’s A interesting And Explicative Vídeo.
In 2000 years people will say that cologne 2015 was just a bunch of people coming together and hugging each with consent
thank you
We history majors take more than one class *such as History Practicum), just on assessing the truthfulness of historiographies and motives of their authors,
A lot of the pro-Barbarian stance comes out of mainly and firstly North American academia, most especially the USA. Countries that built their populations and economies mainly on mass immigration's and settlement have a predictable and noticeably strong slant toward favoring the Germanic people of the time not as "invaders" but as "peaceful immigrants just looking for a better life" even though the archaeology and surviving historical data strongly shows otherwise. This idea has gone on and gained momentum in recent years in the Old World countries as well as strongly pro-immigration political parties that see it as a way out of a demographic crash or for politically correct reasons have held a large amount of sway in the last couple decades. Germany has also been the major powerhouse of the European continent for the better part of 30 years, they naturally will want to favor their direct ancestors as a positive contribution the Rome rather than a negative. The reasons for this change in attitude toward the Barbarians and Foederati would be more of a debate were they not so obvious.
Ironic that it’s coming from people whose ancestors migrated to the weaken Roman Empire and pillaged the lives and lands of the Romans and then the empire collapse and lived in their warring kingdoms with Christianity being a unified force that makes us as human as possible. And this include us Spaniards who were in one point Visogothic citizens. Before the moors invaded the Iberian peninsula.
I think it was all pretty violent back then like it is in a lot of places in the world today
hello,i hav no comments just questions,does anyone know if those germanic tribes just woke up one day and walked south leaving no one behind in their former territories so they could bask in the mediterranean sun? did the whole entire tribe left? what happenned to those that stayed behind if any did? and if their territory was left empty ,who occupied all that empty land? we more or less know what happenned when they went into the roman provinces but i never heard before what happened after they left their former lands,thanks
Incredible
Caesars official accounts, while he wreaked havoc in Gaul, wrote about how terrible were those who invaded across the Rhine. Not that he was a Saint or anything.
In J Ceasar's own words, **"I killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more".** While we know that was an exaggeration, he really did have a scorched earth policy when conquering Gaul. That was not the case with Germania. Had the Romans gone in and done to Germania what J Ceasar did to Gaul, there wouldn't have been anyone left to rise up as they did a few generations later.
Just something to think about.
@@TEverettReynolds yes, and after awhile all sides were scorching the joint. That age did not suffer fools. And I agree too there were immigrants Germans as well as those from Germania who sought only booty
@@TEverettReynolds
"had the romans gone in and done to germania what caesar did in gaul"
They tried and failed. they could not conquer germania.
@@boarfaceswinejaw4516 It not worth the effort or cost.
@@mich722
exactly. they could not conquer germania. high cost is part of that evaluation.
To say that events ultimately had a positive outcome is not to justify or excuse those events. Barbara Tuchman postulated that the Black Death shaped Europe by increasing the value and therefore leverage of peasants. It's not inconsistent to say that violent military actions were the spearhead of peaceful migration. Armies were not so big then. The effect of the Norman invasion of England was to replace the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy with French-speaking Normans (who were themselves Vikings who conquered Normandy and went native). The aristocracy had to communicate with the Anglo-Saxons, transforming Old English into Middle English, but there was no mass migration from France. As you say, reality is complicated.
❤
Excellent video. I appreciate the use of primary sources and logic to reach what is almost certainly the right conclusion.
this move in historiography is totally not ominous in any way - usa and europe are absolutely in no state in decline at all whatsoever
As always, truth does not care about narratives and ideologies, it is more complex and hard to fully grasp.
I chuckled at seeing my name with a V instead of U. Thanks.
If you think the premise is absurd yes, there are actual academics who argue that barbarian invasions were largely peaceful migratory resettlements and while they do not deny conflicts that ensued they do minimize their importance and frequency.
Bro you are strollmening
@@rrrr-xj6ll who you be calling surströmming???
@@zurbereshisaqesh7601 I ment a straw Manning
@@rrrr-xj6ll not only you don't know how to spell it but apparently you don't even know what it means
@@zurbereshisaqesh7601 I know what it means and am sorry genius that English is not my first language
I have never heard anyone claim that barbarian invaders (!) were peaceful ^^
He mention those who do in the beginning of the video. This is a subject that barley gets even mentioned in Schools in Western Europe. Which is odd considering most nations are directly tied to the Germanic invasions, like the Franks invading and becoming the French etc
There are a lot of university professors who try to change the narrative for whatever reason.
It's a more recent thing last couple of decades really, And not until the 10 or so years did it gain any real notice and sadly now people are trying to rewrite facts to fit their own desired version of the past.
@@TheLordRichard so he is giving them more attention than they would have 🤦♂️. Like flat earthers
Plenty of books were written since the 1970s and are being used in Universities today making this claim.
I like your logic and thinking. It does give a different perspective to our old school history. 👍👍👍 I think it also helps that I am long past school history, lol 🤣
I would put down my scutum and gladius and welcome the embrace of my handsome and beautiful German invaders.
Well initially contacts with barbarians was aggressive. Raids and campaigns between both sides to conquer land or gain precious stuff.
But once the Roman borders in Europe was stabilized, barbarians was seen as a kind of resource.
Soldiers for the Roman's to put in battle against Orient powers.
So relationships started to be settled often peacefully, but sometimes barbarians had to be pacified in order to get their cooperation.
During the last centuries of western Roman empire, romans offered territories inside the Empire to barbarians in order to save them from the pushing of Asian hordes.
Like Huns.
So germanico barbarians got their status of "foederatus" (federals in modern terms) with rights of auto-govern but still subjected to Roman laws and authority. Often called to fight for the empire etc until Roman armies, badly supplied and supported by the leadership, was lost in battle against those same Asian hordes.
After battles like Adrianopolis, Romans had to build their armies by just barbarians troops, so these last got a significant power in the Empire, and by that, their influence became even superior of that of the same emperors.
Being an emperor of an empire that have no army and have to deal with someone that have a strong army but is technically inferior to you in rank is not a good position.
That's why in 476 AD the last Roman emperor was deposed in favor of the first King of Italy.
Ostrogoths, Lombards and other barbarians used to be called Kings of Italy. And that charge lasted until modern times.
Indeed, the last King of Italy was Umberto the Second, that chose for the auto-exile in 1946 after the Referendum for the form of the State after WW2.
Except for the periods of foreign invasions, te institution of King of Italy have a direct line from the end of Rome to today.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Italy
I have developed a real hatred for revisionist historians, ignoring primary documents and rewriting history to suit their political goals. I used to work as an archaeologist, but my work has become impossible in this political climate, well unless I am willing to ignore or cover up facts or events that don;t fit the new history. Its depressing to see this going on in Europe, the idea of 'peaceful' barbarian invasions is farsical.
Attila looked Asian as that's the way he was drawn by Eastern Roman artists . Not only that but Greek speaking men dressed in Scythian clothing not just Germanic and Keltic peoples were coerced to join the Hun raids . . Western Roman life continued for everyday people anyway . They starved , suffered but continued as Romans . The loss of concrete and other techniques were the real crying shame for civil society and took ages upon ages to rediscover lost trade skills on a industrial scale . Still there was worse considering the Turko Mongol Turko period as far as disruption and slaughter of farming and city folk went and that didn't only affect Roman influenced cities but Islamic city states as well . Oh I left out India the cradle of Indo Aryan tongues , thanks for pita bread you lot ( naan bread. )
A very good one again, Major ! It's so nice how the channel has grown that much. Herzlichen Glückwunsch. 🙂
As for the Franks, they settled quite peacefully as foederati in what is now parts of the Netherlands and Belgium. Once they took over Gaul, they were assimilated within the much larger Gallo-Romanic population.
As for the Goths, initially they came in peace and as foederati as well and the regions they tried to settle in weren't exactly over-populated anyway. Well, things got out of control due to bad Roman behavior.
As for the Saxons (Angles, Jutes), initially they were mercenaries to defend Britain against Picts and Pirates. Anyway this happened after Rome left. Genetic research from burial sites has proven that Romano-British and Saxon people lived next to each other. It isn't hard to see a Saxon warrior getting a British wife "somehow".
Many Germanic tribes (Vandals, Goths) by that time were Arian christians but that collided with the Roman church. This might have something to do with the "Barbarians" being painted as devils by ROMAN authors.
Of course Roman people were afraid of strangers. "Germanic" people today are afraid of foreigners who have a slightly different religion ...
As for atrocities and cruelty, we should take a closer look on how Rome ("good" Vespasian) dealt with the Jewish Revolt or "peaceful" Julius Ceasar in Gaul. There was no difference in cruelty between Barbarians and Rome (or ancient Greece), it was a matter of propaganda.
You don't have to go back in time that far; the 20th century has seen some of the worst cruelties in human history as well as the "best" propaganda.
Rome started the fight.
Very peaceful "looting and burnings"
Lol if Maximinus Thrax ruled for a few years longer the empire would go bankrupt
Merci !
Thanks a lot for your donation :)
I think there might be a connection between modern immigration trends in the face of declining liberal democracy and modern historians' desire to make previous instances of the same phenomenon more palatable to modern people.
I see I'm not the only one thinking along these lines.
In the roman empire , we see separation of rome. For example the Regnum Galliarum , Regnum Britannia and the Palmyrenian Empire. The Barbarian Invasion were succesful when the local elite support the barbarian King. Generally germanic Warlords do not make a living by killing the cow. They make a living to milk the cow. Roman livestyle depents on Trade of Olive Oil and Wine. If you prefer roman livestyle in christianity , with wine an olive oil, you have to move . Even in the late roman period, a Latifundium was not made for cash crops to export. Now actualy only to provide a comfort live of the Landlord himself. A blacksmith was a blacksmith for the demand of the landlord for his Villa Rustica an became the blacksmith of the village in the middleages. The Justinian Plague caused, that milkcows in Britain died, and roman livestyle vanished. If we look on Edward Gibbons view. We have to consider, that anglo saxxon Warlords aks for frisian settlers to get tribute and food from them.
C’mon ese, jus let us settle on yo land homie, we ain’t no invaders
LOL. You only need to add "We are hungry, desperate, and have the same weapons as you, and, now know all your military tactics after training with you for the last 2 centuries...)
Mr Trudeau would say to you 'Welcome to Canada!'
Hahah peaceful? I mean, if you assume no one lived on that land and the people who own that land wouldn't mind new, foreigners coming and settling.... sure, peaceful hahahah
Even though I try to keep up with my history, I actually have never heard in my life the fall of western Rome being remotely described as peaceful…I thought it was always depicted and thought of as “barbarians” pillaging, must be some new wave thought from some young CZcamsr. I must follow different sources! 😂
One has to add: the more imperiaistic the society in which an author lived, the more negative his vews on the "barbarians" (i. e. Gibbon).
We often like to see in black and white, like "barbarians were just innocent refugees oppressed by the evil Romans" or "barbarians were just nasty savages who only invade and pillage wherever they go, and that the based Romans put them in their place," and also "the Dark Ages set humanity back 1000 years; had Rome not fallen, we'd be exploring galaxies by now" or "there was no Dark Age in Europe, everyone was peaceful and happy." I've seen a mix of both lately, and the truth is that history is far more complex than we like to see it.
While barbarian tribes were not as advanced as the Greeks or Romans in that they weren't very literate or had large cities or infrastructure, they weren't just mindless cave-dwellers either; they had pretty good socities of their own and even gave some thing to the Romans (soap for example). Barbarian invasions were violent and destructive, but Romans weren't exactly friendly either. History in general was pretty brutal, and not much has changed these days.
Likewise with the Dark Ages, we tend to exaggerate the bad aspects and the time frame as if there was zero progress for a thousand years and it's all just ignorance and warfare, and it results in unfair connotations regarding anything medieval (even if it wasn't medieval, such as witch trials), but the Fall of Rome did see a major initial setback in civilization; although innovations still occurred, there were some more complex projects that we weren't able to fully recover until the Industrial Revolution, and it was only now that we start to understand the process of Roman concrete. Of course, while the invasions did cause a good amount of destruction, there were many factors that caused the decline of Rome, much of which are because of the Romans themselves.
Regardless, even though Western Europe was not in a good shape, there was still far more significant changes made by Arabs, Chinese, Eastern Romans, Persians, and Indian civilizations. "Progress" in a sense isn't always strictly linear or exponential whether it's an increase or decrease; some things improve, while other things decline.
The barbarians fought between tribes, they sold the women of the defeated tribes to the Romans. If they were so good at fighting, why didn't they fight for their territory against some? I prefer.invade rome
IMO they went from the ditch on one side across the road and into the ditch on the other side. I think the truth is somewhere between the two. Some were peaceful while others were violent migrations of the Germanic peoples into the Roman Empire.
It was MOSTLY PEACEFUL....LOL
*DISTAIN FOR BARBARIANS*
Debated!? The “barbarians” (generic overused term tbh) we’re going to give the Romans exactly what they had been taking for centuries, both parties knew this. I’m sure some were more proactive and barbarous then others but that’s besides the point. Live by the sword, fall by the sword. All that plunder needed plundering lol.
Pretty much. You reap what you sow in the end. The West was unfortunate in that it took the brunt.
@@septimiusseverus343 happened to the eastern half 1000 years later anyway...
You can't really blame older historiography for being tough on the Germanic invaders due to the world wars alone. Edward Gibbon and the English Victorians did not go through such great wars themselves, rather I see them as using the antiquated racial world views of the past rather than living through the World Wars like the Germans or Russians did. 1770 and 19th century England was at the height of their empire, so why would they be disgusted by war?
Germanic tribes rampaging through the Italian peninsular of the Roman heartlands (sacking Rome itself several times) circa 400s AD. Nazi Germany rampaging through Italy under Kesselring (under orders of the Fuhrer) turning Italy and potentially Rome into multiple battlefields circa 1943-1945. History really didn't change much in Europe in 1500 years, just the weapons and tactics got a lot deadlier. The "peaceful" settlement notion of Germanic tribes migrations and settlement in 5th century Roman Empire lands is wishful thinking at best.
True, Germany attempting to replicate and capitalize off the legacy of the Roman Empire but it clearly didn’t work out.
@@septimiusseverus343 Actually, Hitler and many Germans idolized the Roman Empire and their legacy. Of course Mussolini did as well. This is well documented and established. Germany dreamed and couldn’t fulfill.
@@jmac6055 Well it took the whole world to bring Germany to her knees. As always. Now the world wins through demographic replacement!
Hopefully not for long.
@@AKingdomCometh The whole world? Hardly. Their dreams were short lived. Germany is a fantastic nation. I’m just commenting on this specific topic.
Bro you are strall meaning most historians do not believe that Germans came they simply say that there was no binary conflict between the Romans and the barbarians peacefully rather it was more like game of thrones where every body was against every body else
#DiversityIsOurStrengh
This isn't about America
Relax
that what rome was
@@chideraalexanderdex547 European Ethnic groups expected to be a minority in the coming decades:
English
Irish
Scottish
Italians
Germans
French
Swedish
And many more. How is this only about America? The “diversity is our strength message” is pushed in Europe too.
@@AKingdomCometh what stats do you have to back that claim because it looks like absolute false alarmist bs
Yes and no.
If I weren’t impoverished I would gladly donate :/
This isn't a good representation about the state of research/motivations of the opinions of historians. The collapse theory has regained a lot of ground in recent decades. And it isn't (or at least it isn't only) because of contemporary biases, it is because new sources were pulled in.
The early historians like Gibbons used histories written by elite romans, who saw the societal structure they knew, their position in society and their empire's reach crumble. So they saw it as a collapse. A later generation started to look at other documents that weren't directly intended as history, lots of church documents for example. And they found that there was a lot of cultural continuity. The "barbarians" put themselves at the top of an existing Roman society and adopted much of Roman culture, Roman institutions like the church remained influential. So the "change and continuity" view was born and gained ground. Then more and more evidence from archaeology was pulled in and we found a drastic decrease in standards of living. So it turned out that there actually was a collapse, but it wasn't exactly barbarians buring everything down. The Germanic tribes brought war to regions that had (as an exception in history) known peace for a long time. This disrupted trade routes and made investments (like draft animals for farmers) very insecure, leading to living standards falling back to a lower equilibrium, with many people dying.
Of course when the barbarian tribes were at war, they were violent. But the sources quoted in the video don't show them as more violent than Romans. That's just how war has been through most of history. That's how the Romans built their Empire. And when there wasn't war, the Germanic invaders did largely live peacefully alongside the Romans. For a time, then came war again. And peace again. Just like how most of history has been. The Roman Empire was unusual in that it managed to shield people outside the border regions from this for several centures.
By the way, an overview of the historical debate about this that I can recommend is on Bret Devereaux's blog A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry: acoup.blog/category/collections/fall-of-rome/ (I hope CZcams still allows links)
I have yet to find out a person they believes the Germans conquered the areas “peacefully”.
How do you draw attention to yourself as an academic? You come up with a novel and sensationally different theory.
Lol? Invasions typically are violent, so ...
Is that really becoming a thing???
Nope. It's a fake problem these people are creating. You learn about the sack of rome in high school and then university goes into more detail
Modern Historians: The invasion of barbarian tribes was peaceful!
Majorianus: They burned cities, slaughtered the children, raped the nuns, and sacked the city of Rome.
Modern Press: That sounds like mostly peaceful to me!
> Modern Press: That sounds like mostly peaceful to me!
You miss the point. The Modern Press would say that the "refugees" did what they needed to do to survive since Rome cut them off. Had Rome just welcomed them, sheltered them, feed them, and protected them, then none of this would have happened.
Now, there is some truth to this, but it would have required Rome to change into a welcoming and open Empire, which it was not.
@@TEverettReynolds not to say that the Romans were open, welcoming and all that but they were more than happy to let the barbarian migrants in the empire and they had already done that before, just in smaller doses in order to settle and develop underdeveloped regions plus free manpower for the Roman Military, however letting in, sheltering and feeding hundreds of thousands of migrants is no easy task, maybe possible but would most likely need the undivided Attention of the Roman Military and Government and that's nigh impossible with all the Campaigns, revolts, uprisings, civil wars and invasions which would all be considered far more important by the Romans.
They deserve it
In this thread made up arguments in ppls heads
a set of lies generally agreed upon
It annoys me so much when people try to whitewash history in this way.
Excellent! A truth badly needed telling. All history shows that the most violent destruction are wrought by invaders of a lower level of cultural development on those more advanced. Nothing enrages more than envy. Note that an exception is the migration to England of the Angles and Saxons in the late 5th century. Previously thought to be a conquest, it is now recognized that this was more a gradual, organic colonization and absorption of the native Britons, mostly likely because the latter were not that much better off.
Aren't we lucky to live in (relatively) peaceful times? Assuming you're not living in Afhganistan or some s**thole country.
Yes the fall of Rome was needed for the rise of Europe also can you actually respond to some of the points of the historians who you don't agree
I don't think the barbarian invasions were any near peaceful events. I can see some christian tribes or even barbarian kingdoms like the Goths becoming foederatii, or some germanic people fleeing from other germanic attacks, but many germanic tribes hated the romans for what they did to their ancestors. I can see the vandals destroying everything at their way, that's why even today we describe some horror event or destruction of propriety an act of vandals. So I believe there were some peaceful tribes settling in the Roman Empire, and others just for pillage and blood. I can also see those settled tribes being abused by the roman authorities, the romans were a very pride people, and hated the barbarians. Those tribes or kingdoms that were converted to christianity I think they were more peaceful than those that weren't. The goths pillage Rome but spared the population after the Pope's request, they were christians.
Historians in 2150: Global warming was a peaceful and necessary move
Global warming, and the effects of less drinking water and rising oceans, will honestly be the end of us. For example, 50% of Bangladesh will be underwater... where exactly do you relocate those 500 million people? And that is just one example of one country that will need help. It's not going to be pretty in the future...
The Seremisima (Venice) was the last roman sucesor state to fall, faling in the hands of the corsian Napolean ,a latin brother(1804),and the last of the cities of Western Rome to fall to germs,it come under austrians as late as 1815.
The last province to fall to them was Dacia ,modern Roumania
,we voted a german to be our king in 1860.
NO COMENTS
First
In England, archeologists could find no traces of a violent Anglo-Saxon invasion. Therefore historians now tend to assume that there was never such an invasion, and that the Anglo-Saxon settlement of England occurred peacefully.
I remember hearing that forensic archeologists found the male Celtic lines were extinguished but the female Celtic DNA still exists in the UK today. If correct, that's a big sign it wasn't exactly "peaceful".
They are "past Polishing" Same as when they claim the Neanderthals were not so bad. It's a form of taking the heat off ones ancestors.
Any effort to push mass migration 😂😂
Never have I ever heard the Germanic invasions were peaceful... Never not once...
History is writen by the victors,in this case barbarians(germanic peoples\light eyed people).
NO COMENTS
Some outright lies to claim that migration always has been a good thing.
Bruh no one thinks barbarians were peaceful 🤦♂️
Looks like you are running out of ideas
People have been writing books on this subject of transition and not invasion since the 1970s, and many colleges and universities teach this in their classes today.
Actually people are, if you watch kings and generals, they have been saying that it was peaceful. I am not sure but I thing even HistoryMarche did a video of it being peaceful, although I could be wrong about HistoryMarche. There are other people that are saying that the Germanic migrations were peaceful as well.
@@zachariasvides3811 Who cares
@@TEverettReynolds lol the vast majority of people think barbarians as cartoony villains. If anything it's the opposite.
We barbarians are still plugging away at judeo-christian perspective to characterize the situation as genocide of gentiles, which is reality rather than the delusion people currently live in
Thanks for pushing back against the wokeness bozos
A little from column A and a little from column B. 🏛️
Thank you and Much Love from the Philippines.