How Powerful was the Roman Emperor? Part 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 07. 2024
- In this video we explore how powerful the Roman Emperor really was during, the period historians call, the Principate (27 BC - 284 AD)
Don't forget to check out Part 2 on Eastern Roman History's Channel:
• How Powerful was a Rom...
Intro 0:00
The First Emperor 0:28
Title of Emperor 2:38
Military Power 4:03
Ideological Power 6:15
Imperial Court 7:13
Imperial Estates 8:15
Conclusion 8:48
Outro 9:40
The SPQR Store: tinyurl.com/y7sep8ty
Music:
Ancient Roman Music - The Roman Empire ( • Ancient Roman Music - ... )
Basically, the Roman Emperor was an army general who had made himself dictator. Not unlike in some countries today. Another major flaw was that there was no certain method of succession to the Imperial throne. It was a system that was ripe for chaos and instability. As was proved in the 3rd century. As numerous army generals fought one another for the Imperial prize.
The longest reigning Emperor's of the 3rd Century Crisis
Gallienus: 253 - 268
Valerian: 253 - 260
Probus: 276 - 282
Philip: 244 - 249
Gordian III: 238 - 244
Aurelian: 270 - 275
Maximinus Thrax: 235 - 238
Claudius II: 268 - 270
Trebonius Gallus: 251 - 253
Decius: 249 - 251
Pupienius & Balbanius
June - August 238
Gordian I & II: June 238
Yep, even with some of the best ones on this little list, they didn't last too long
The system would even continue to plague the Empire until 1453
"So, your bodyguards get a huge bonus everytime their ward is assassinated ?"
"... Yeah !"
I can't see any flaw in that logic...
This is a really good video. I really look forward to collaborating again in the future!
Same here, it was great 🙏
What did I stumble upon here? Nice
curiosity: the Roman republic was not officially finished. Otaviano (Augusto) cleverly kept the appearance of a republic intact when he took power, perhaps not to be called a tyrant. so bureaucratically speaking the Roman republic existed even with emperors in charge.
Yeah you are correct - the republic was still intact but with an Augustus at the top
@theAlex
So, the Roman Senate gave more and more titles and power to the Emperor, but the Senate still existed. That similar to what happened in Nazi Germany. After the Reichstag Fire, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, giving Hitler the power to enact laws by degree. Yet throughout the dictatorship, the Reichstag still existed.
@@spaceman081447 👍😃
SPQR Historian you’ve done another superb job!!!
Thank you 🙏
Enjoyed the video alot!
Glad to hear it!
I don't know why but the idea of "first citizen" makes me think that the emperor was the first person you met when coming to Rome.
It's very useful to cut a long video into thematic segments. I hope others would do that too. Kudos!
Great video!
This is really great! I LOVE Roman History. Just Subbed and requested notification.
5:48 or, more in keeping with the sources, he was assassinated in a coup disguised as a mutiny. His "successor", who instigated the coup, was nearly killed himself (and was later killed by his army in spring 238 AD), by archers loyal to Severus Alexander. The version put out by Maximinus, and too often accepted uncritically by later generations has to explain why a dead emperor not yet deified (Maximinus literally had to die first for this to happen) was capable of inspiring loyalty in the soldiers blamed for his murder.
Loving these videos!
Glad you like them!
This is a great description. It would be great if followed by some form of this power comparison to say Medieval Kings or emperors in Persia, India, China or even Dictatorships in modern times. All the best!
Always forget the reign of Aurelius was a co rule with Lucius Verus
I arrived here via Tom Hollands book, Dynasty. Rome and it's history is a pretty daunting subject but I hope manageable if broken down. This was a good piece to start with. Thank you. L/s.
Just subbed from Eastern Roman History. can’t wait to check out more on this channel
Edit: Quick question though! Upon the death of an Emperor, what really prevented the Senate from just proclaiming the restoration of the Republic again? I would understand if the Army had something to do with it but what about when the senate elected there own to the purple?
Thanks Noah, and welcome!
It's a really complex question. Even upon the death of Augustus most of the senators had never experienced the 'old republic', so they probably didn't know how to effectively reverse the changes done. I think they actually considered trying to restore the republic after the death of Caligula, but the praetorian guards had already found their replacement in Claudius. Trying to restore the republic would inevitably cause a civil war in the empire. It's a really interesting topic to think about 🤔
The SPQR Historian In the case of Claudius, could it be that even though they wanted to restore it, they instead decided on the path of least resistance in order to maintain there position? It is indeed an interesting and complex question. Thank you for answering!
The army and praetorian guard I suppose.
Principally (no pun intended), because the Romans collectively saw the office of Emperor as necessary to maintaining the laws and institutions OF the Republic. Proclaiming a return to the senatorial republic that had become synonymous with the civil wars that had blighted the first century BC would have been politically uncomfortable, and out of line with the general sentiment throughout Rome and the provinces (Pax Augusta). Misconceptions about the emperor's position even pepper the video (which is excellent for the most part), because it's become common to refer to the "throne" (which Roman emperors under the Principate didn't sit on), or to assert that only assassination could remove an incumbent emperor, which is untrue (the last Julio-Claudian emperor, Nero, was declared an enemy of the State by the Senate). It should also be noted that the republican character of the office wasn't just a veneer, meaning that there was no hereditary succession. Consequently, you couldn't just expect your son to become emperor after you. Sons who succeeded their fathers had to have been prominently groomed for the role as Caesar to their father (the Augustus, or senior co-emperor), have the support of the Senate and army (the plebs were a plus, naturally, but at least have the Senate and army on your side), and avoid doing anything to lose that support while making the necessary adjustments to the status quo.
Amazing channel!! i subbed
Thanks and welcome!
Thank you immensely for the knowledge you give us. I appreciate it a lot!
I'm concluding the law school and my final paper will be about ancient Rome, so can you send me the bibliography that you used to make this video? :D
*All those in favour of reforming the empire, say AYE!*
Bravo! Love histoy.
AVE AVGVSTVS MUNDI DIVUS PRINCEPS , thanks for the clear and accurate video!
The Illyrians 🇦🇱 contributed a lot to the Roman/Byzantine Empire 🦅 (Fearsome Warriors).
Here is the list of Roman Emperors 🤴 of Illyrian origin (🇦🇱):
- Justinian I
- Justin I
- Anastasius I
- Marcianus
- Valentinian II
- Gratian
- Valens
- Valentinian I
- Jovian
- Constantius II
- Constantine the Great
- Maximianus "Herculius
- Diocletian
- Probus
- Aurelian
- Quintillus
- Claudius II "Gothicus
- Hostilianus
- Decius
Source: The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century A.D. to the Third by Edward N. Luttwak, page 178, "high-grade cavalry (equites Illyriciani)"
This region was late Romanized. It was famous for its excellent soldiers, frustrated but courageous. In Illyria (in the geographical sense) was indeed the most powerful of the Roman armies, in charge of watching over the Danube (nearly 12 legions, that is to say 130 000 men)...
Don't forget to check out part 2, on Eastern Roman History's channel:
czcams.com/video/pBIDA9_WpQY/video.html
Could you please make a video on pliny the younger?
I want to do a video on Pliny - I was considering doing a video on Plinys perspective on the mount Vesuvius eruption of 79, since he was an eye-witness account (where Pliny the elder died)
@@TheSPQRHistorian That would be cool, his letters are a wonderful resource.
👍
We need an Emperor
The Emperor title shouldn’t be used because the today’s meaning is not the same with the one during Rome’s times. Imperator or First Princepes should be the correct one. Also Caesar and Augustus, although names at origins, in time became titles. Emperor’s title, today’s meaning, should be considered valid with the late Eastern Roman Empire
Also a small interesting fact
To show no resemble of Monarchy
The Empire never had Princes
They always considered it as a "Caesar" aka Junior Emperor
Never considered Caesar as a Prince like title & always as the minor Leader waiting for themselves to become the Senior Emperor
I mean... why not call ceasar the first emperor? like you said they wasn't any term at the time to mean emperor, his power was all under a republican veneer. And the name Ceasar became just as much a title as Augustus had become.
Caesar was 'just' a dictator for life, just like Sulla before him. The reforms that transformed the Repiblic into the Principate was done during Octavians time, like the division of imperial and senatorial provinces, establishment of the Praetorian guard etc. It's all pretty convoluted...
@@TheSPQRHistorian but is it really an empire if there is no self identification as such. I mean Octavian himself was pretty much Caesar's heir anyway. Maybe the principate is a better name, the title of princeps at least seems to have started with Octavian.
I should tell you that augustus is also julius caesar grand nephew
I wanted to find exactly this! Hehehe *rubs hands*
Hey guys. Um... that shit going to happen again! Here! Lol. At least we have you tube!
Can't you have a 10 minute long video without adds two minutes in?
Depends on the Emperor…
America needs a system like this!
America needs a great dictator now who perfect the system
You mean the modern world need's a system like this!
PrinKeps .. ce is a soft K.
How about Caesar, You didn't mind that pronunciation? Should really be Kaisar...
From the beginning of the history of Civilization, it had been and always China that is the most powerful empire on earth. Even today, its influence on earth is overwhelming. Rome was powerful. But based on numbers in the military, China was much greater. But since Rome covered a diverse area dwelt by people of different colour pledging allegiance to the Roman Emperor, it was indeed great.
China was so powerful an empire, they built the World's longest wall to keep out the Mongol's. Who as it happened simply went around the wall and conquered China anyway. In the year 1900, so powerful was China that it could not prevent the British army from laying siege to Beijing. So powerful mighty China, it was invaded and occupied by the Japanese until the end of WW2. So powerful is mighty China, a country of 1.3-1.5billion people, with a military easily number in the millions, it can do nothing against the tiny population of 23million of Taiwan.
@@occiderisaethiopissa3702 You got your facts wrong, the Great Wall was to defend Chinese territory from Xiongnu. Mongol didn’t have to go around the Great War because as it conquered Jin, the Great War was within its territory. More importantly, when one talks about China, one must be clear about what he or she is referring to. The word China comes from the word 秦 or 晋, during which dynasty the word covered the empire from Luoyang to Kaifen. The empire called its territory 中国. From then on, western cultures called whatever dynasty built around the Yellow river China. Before The republic of China, China had remained a geographic concept, not a nationality. So mongol empire was also China, simply governed by a “minor” nationality like many regimes of non-Han nationality in Chinese history (e.g. Nvzhen, Xianbei). If you don’t agree with this arguement, you should consistently not use the Siege of the International Legations as one of your arguments because Qing Dynasty, during which it happened, was ruled by non-Han nationality. What I agree with is from the end of Ming dynasty, China was far from most powerful or influential. With regard to Taiwan, well, do you think unifying Taiwan (which also calls itself China) by force a good decision in contemporary time a humanity-wise good decision? I think not. It can, it just choose not to. However, I would’t say China is “much more powerful” either.
@@Sam-cs6hu Guy, not only did I get my facts correct, but you are seriously coping. Seethe harder.
China was an oversized regional power, but with the end of the Han dynasty in the 3rd century the empire fractured into roughly three parts, amid rebellions and invasion from peoples of Inner Asia. Numbers are all debatable - not talking reliable statistics back then. In general, the populations of China and Rome in the first and second were comparable. Towards the end of the Han empire the military may have been a little large, but supposedly Rome's army was a bit larger towards the end of the military emergency of the third century on through the fourth century. Like with their populations, the military establishments were likely comparable in size in the first century.
Caesar was a dictator but he was my emperor I was a Roman officer and Caesar's tenth Legion Caesar was loved by the people. Rome will rise again
👑🐎 Roman augustus arthodex catholic airline airliess justine constantine hardine tarjan rumulus remx Hercules otto otho Titus gordian basil phillip the arab titus zeus apollo 👑🐎🚓🚨🚓🚨🚓
didn't trump want to be a dictator
The Dictator of Rome was seldom the Emperor himself, exceptions being, in my humble opinion, Commodus, Caesar, Romulus, Marcus Aurelius. Look to the prophets, oracles and the likes of Pliny. The only dictator you will ever find ran with the wolves. And, he is immortal.
Christianity was very useful for the Roman Emperors.
Maderian empire not Roman empire Roman empire is black civilization
WE WUZ SEEZURRS N’ SHIEET
??????
WE WUZ
This is the perfect balance of clickbait and fact. 😂 Are you not entertained???