Great video! It's pretty hard to find history videos on youtube that aren't pophis or flashy to the point of being irritating - I like the simplicity of your lecture style, you should consider possibly converting these to a podcast (as in advertising them as such) in order to get a wider audience. You should also consider tagging your videos and adding a load of relevant terms in the description so you can increase your chances of getting more views.
I have Patreon-exclusive information on Alexandria and Athens. I have the material for a video on Carthage, but I haven't yet precorded it as a lecture.
Vitruvius was a Roman architect, whos book made a great impression on Italian architects and artists of Renaissance period. Modern architects still study his volume De architectura.
Sometimes I wonder if Rome had ever gotten access to a crop as magnificent as the humble potato it might have survived because it no longer has to rely on trying to prevent it's bread baskets from being snatched and it starving as a result.
After the th Byzantines left Rome, it wasn't simply allowed to decay, there were industries that arose out of its deliberate destruction. Architectural elements were dismantled and reused in Christian basilicas and churches. As far away as Charlemagne's palace at Aachen the marbles and columns were shipped to be reused. The corinthian columns at Aachen were not made by medieval craftsmen. The precision industrial arts were forgotten. What they could not salvage and sell, they would burn for making lime. Burning marble and travertine results in lime to be used as mortar in brick construction. Lime was a major export of early medieval Rome. What survived was because of special use, or luck. Read the book "The Destruction of Rome" by Rodolfo Lanciani. He catalogues the slow deliberate take-down of these once amazing buildings. Great video, thanks for posting.
Statues and other arts were traded all around the medieval world, or sent as gifts between rulers or governors. The stuff was just sitting everywhere. Without the grain dole, Rome couldn't support a population over 150,000, and large parts of the city sat abandoned. And the structures that were converted into churches(like the Pantheon)was really the best thing that could have happened to them, as it allowed them to be preserved until today. It should be noted however, that the worst destruction of ancient structures in Rome happened during the Renaissance, with the increase of new monumental building. Rome still had officials in charge of the preservation of ancient structures(called the conservatori). They lost their authority to the Vatican in the 15th century. Huge amounts of materials was taken from the forum and elsewhere, and when St. Peter's Basilica was commissioned in 1506, there was no more red tape on Roman structures to stop the firm in charge of construction from exploiting. It was quite controversial at the time. Even many of the old temples that had been converted into churches and maintained were disassembled for St. Peter's. What we have in Rome today is still far better than what he have elsewhere, though, such as in the east. There's nothing left in Babylon but buried ruins. Seleucia Mesopotamia is a dirt mound. Ctesiphon's last surviving palace is collapsing. And Constantinople, which was once called "The greater Rome" has very little left to show from it's golden age, as everything has been allowed to rot, demolished for materials, or built directly over(or all three) by the Ottomans. It's just the course of History, though. The classical Greeks didn't preserve the old hill palaces and cities from before their time, and the Romans destroyed more than a few remarkable ancient cities(such as Carthage, Corinth, and Jerusalem for example), and had no problem shipping monuments from their conquered territories back to Italy.
Thersites, do you know anything about Byzantine Rome? As in the city of Rome under Byzantine rule, especially during the 700s, 600s, and later 500s? It just seems like something that is not talked about much and seems to be interesting to me atleast. The only information that I know of was that it was part of the Exarchate of Ravenna, the last addition to the Roman Forum, the Column of Phocas, was put up during that time, and that many of Rome’s important sites, such as the ones you mentioned like the Flavian Amphitheater and the Circus Maximus were privately owned by the time of Pope Gregory in the early 600s, as well as that the Senate of Rome seems to have died out sometime in the early to mid 600s.
I don't know all that much about early medieval Rome aside from the general decline in population and the reappropriation of ancient structures to build Christian churches. I am somewhat interested in the low point of the Papacy, so I might revisit the topic one day.
Yes I find this topic incredibly interesting,how Rome gradually became depopulated,what was the last meeting of the senate about? etc The last show in the Flavian amphitheather/colloseum was a hunt afaik. As far as I know the term "disenfranchised/enfranchised" arose to refer to Romans under the franks when they got rights to petition the frankish lords.(thats in Gaul ofc).
Byzantine Rome was broken by Justinian ( among other things ) the infastructure was destroyed, the population decreased from 1 million to 30,000 from plague and war... there really isn't much to say about it at the time... Except the catholic church still operated there.... Most of the trade and learning moved to Constantinople.
@@jessefisher1809 Uh no, Rome had a population less than 100,000 by 500 AD. The gothic sieges did devastate it lowering the population even more but Colonization and investment from the eastern administration saw its population stabilize around 80-100k. A multitude of monasteries were built in the city under the Byzantines. This saw eastern and Greek literature, medicine, philosophy etc translated from Greek, Syrian and Coptic to Latin. Infact Rome remained the best place to learn Greek in the West until the 800s. The number of Syrian popes during Byzantine rule speaks for itself of the eastern Ecclesiastical migration to Rome during its time under Byzantine rule. It remained the number 1 city of ecclesiastical importance in the Byzantine west and 2nd most important city in Byzantine Italy after Ravenna. Source: A Companion to Byzantine Italy composed by Salvatore Cosentino.
@@tylerellis9097 I'm not seeing anything mutually exclusive here... except maybe the population, and that is just comparing one estimate to another. Lets say you're right. Its 100,000. Still a lot less than Constantinople. And to me thats illuminated by the lack of sources. But I'll admit I'm not an expert in the area. So what statement did I make that you had a problem with exactly?
most documentaries are a sentence of less, then silence or irritating music, pictures, thus mostly fluff. here you get 'your money's worth,' a solid, fast paced and exceptionally informative lecture (though I'm not sure about the opinion's expressed by the professor's cat)
When Hamilcar Barca invaded Spain, did he have the full backing of Carthage or was this more of his personal plan to create a seperate empire for the Barca family? I heard or read somewhere that there was some bad blood between Hamilcar and the Carthaginian senate after the First Punic War.
He was given a commission to expand into Spain, but there was bad blood with the "Africa-first" faction led by Hanno the Great and just as with the Romans, anyone who achieved a little too much success would be seen as something of a threat.
@@ThersitestheHistorian interestingly enough, "Africa first" was not a bad policy at all and had the Carthaginians achieved the same lvl of unity that Rome had with Italy and then pushed out into Spain. History might have been very different. Carthage would have had a hinterland to soak up invasions after all.
@@cv4809 Lets review history, Carthage lost because their allies/subjects provided her with cavalry, and they made a deal with Rome and turned on Carthage. Controlling the hinterland means that they would be secure in the rear and nothing like this would've happened. Now, geography lesson, first of all, back in those days the northern african coast was extremely fertile and productive, no wonder why Carthage was so successful, it was, after Egypt, the second largest provider of grain and foodstuffs for the Roman Empire for example. Even today the African coastline has quite the temperate weather and is "green" up until the Atlas mountains, back in the day this temperate area extended further south. Carthage was a trading power with colonies, yes, but it was basically just 1 (massive) city, as i said before, it didn't have the same control over the African hinterland that Rome had with Italy. And finally, yes, the Sahara as fabulous "wall", if an army is denied a major city, port or supplies in general, there is literally nowhere to go, Cesar almost ended its career when caught out of position in northern africa, south of Carthage. One last tidbit, some historians say that, the changing weather that made north africa less productive was one of the key factors for the fall of the Western Empire, since it was supposed to be "its Egypt" like the Eastern half had. But it was less and less productive with each passing decade.
“No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full.” Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix I like Sulla. My medulla likes Sulla! Such a man! Loved by his friends, dreaded by his enemies, adored by the plebes. Whats not to like?
Well, he was already dictator of the east(Trumvir). In the minds of Romans, "The Republic" never ended. It continued to be called that all through to the late empire, and all through the Byzantine era. To Romans, "Res/Rei Publica" meant something more like "The Commonwealth." and the eras were separated more into "the aristocracy" and "the monarchy."
So what happened during the Middle Ages? I’ve heard you mention that the Pope mentioned the ruins as evidence of God’s wrath (or something similar) and to spend funds elsewhere. So how long were these magnificent buildings in use? Which were destroyed or converted? Did the city shrink to the Serbian walls (Servian?) before eventually growing? It always baffles me that anyone would allow such great structures to decay and at least not take advantage of them other than potential building materials. Of course I don’t know if local architects eventually left or forgot how.
Most of the buildings were not being used and when the Church was building a new structure, they would often remove pieces of ancient monuments to use as construction materials. For the most part, they were probably salvaging stuff from buildings which had collapsed, although in the case of the Flavian Amphitheater, they removed some metal pieces used for bracing the walls while leaving the building standing. Essentially, the leaders of the Church were indifferent to the fate of the ancient monuments and saw them mostly as a source of building supplies.
It hasn't been made yet, so I don't know how you saw it. Interestingly enough, I am actually about to start recording it with Sean in about 10 minutes.
No, in the time of Pompey it was just know as Syria. I believe it was Dioclitian or a later emperor to call it Palestine because it annoyed the Jews. The Philistei were also from that area but in animosity with the Jews.
Judea became a separate province from Syria late in Augustus's reign(called "Judea"). It was governed from Caesarea by an Equestrian Procurator who answered to the governor of Syria. After 70ad, it became fully independent of Syria, and after the Judean war of 132-135, Judea became a full consular province(run by a governor of consular rank), and the name was changed to "Syria Palestina" by emperor Hadrian, and the name stuck, and still does today. It's okay to call the region "Palestine." "Judea" usually refers to the country of Judea proper, and not the whole province which includes Galilee, Samaria, Idumea, Perea, etc. 150 years later, Diocletian separated all the provinces into smaller ones. Palestine was split into thirds: Palestina Prima(Palestine #1) Palestina Secunda(Palestine #2) Palestina Tertia(Palestine #3)
Roman kitty approves this lecture, as we can hear his imperial meowing.
I came to the comments just to mention the kitten! ❤😅
Great video! It's pretty hard to find history videos on youtube that aren't pophis or flashy to the point of being irritating - I like the simplicity of your lecture style, you should consider possibly converting these to a podcast (as in advertising them as such) in order to get a wider audience. You should also consider tagging your videos and adding a load of relevant terms in the description so you can increase your chances of getting more views.
Agreed
You should do one of these on other famous ancient city’s. Carthage, Babylon, Alexandria, Athens, Etc
I have Patreon-exclusive information on Alexandria and Athens. I have the material for a video on Carthage, but I haven't yet precorded it as a lecture.
Jerusalem
@@LordWyatt Jerusalem...famous, yes, but not terribly significant.
Vitruvius was a Roman architect, whos book made a great impression on Italian architects and artists of Renaissance period. Modern architects still study his volume De architectura.
Sometimes I wonder if Rome had ever gotten access to a crop as magnificent as the humble potato it might have survived because it no longer has to rely on trying to prevent it's bread baskets from being snatched and it starving as a result.
Sir, I watch a lot of history docs. This is another great work, as are much of your videos. Thanks. Keep 'em coming.
Agrippa, the most badass underrated Roman in history.
Poisoning is lame, not badass.
Agrippa is definitely underrated but I feel like the truly most Badass underrated roman is bellasarius
@@earlycat170 Wrong Agrippa I believe
@@darrylforsythe8924 Definetly a number 2 spot or a number 1 contender. Not gonna argue here.
After the th Byzantines left Rome, it wasn't simply allowed to decay, there were industries that arose out of its deliberate destruction. Architectural elements were dismantled and reused in Christian basilicas and churches. As far away as Charlemagne's palace at Aachen the marbles and columns were shipped to be reused. The corinthian columns at Aachen were not made by medieval craftsmen. The precision industrial arts were forgotten. What they could not salvage and sell, they would burn for making lime. Burning marble and travertine results in lime to be used as mortar in brick construction. Lime was a major export of early medieval Rome. What survived was because of special use, or luck. Read the book "The Destruction of Rome" by Rodolfo Lanciani. He catalogues the slow deliberate take-down of these once amazing buildings. Great video, thanks for posting.
Statues and other arts were traded all around the medieval world, or sent as gifts between rulers or governors. The stuff was just sitting everywhere.
Without the grain dole, Rome couldn't support a population over 150,000, and large parts of the city sat abandoned. And the structures that were converted into churches(like the Pantheon)was really the best thing that could have happened to them, as it allowed them to be preserved until today.
It should be noted however, that the worst destruction of ancient structures in Rome happened during the Renaissance, with the increase of new monumental building. Rome still had officials in charge of the preservation of ancient structures(called the conservatori). They lost their authority to the Vatican in the 15th century. Huge amounts of materials was taken from the forum and elsewhere, and when St. Peter's Basilica was commissioned in 1506, there was no more red tape on Roman structures to stop the firm in charge of construction from exploiting. It was quite controversial at the time. Even many of the old temples that had been converted into churches and maintained were disassembled for St. Peter's.
What we have in Rome today is still far better than what he have elsewhere, though, such as in the east. There's nothing left in Babylon but buried ruins. Seleucia Mesopotamia is a dirt mound. Ctesiphon's last surviving palace is collapsing. And Constantinople, which was once called "The greater Rome" has very little left to show from it's golden age, as everything has been allowed to rot, demolished for materials, or built directly over(or all three) by the Ottomans.
It's just the course of History, though. The classical Greeks didn't preserve the old hill palaces and cities from before their time, and the Romans destroyed more than a few remarkable ancient cities(such as Carthage, Corinth, and Jerusalem for example), and had no problem shipping monuments from their conquered territories back to Italy.
Thersites, do you know anything about Byzantine Rome? As in the city of Rome under Byzantine rule, especially during the 700s, 600s, and later 500s? It just seems like something that is not talked about much and seems to be interesting to me atleast. The only information that I know of was that it was part of the Exarchate of Ravenna, the last addition to the Roman Forum, the Column of Phocas, was put up during that time, and that many of Rome’s important sites, such as the ones you mentioned like the Flavian Amphitheater and the Circus Maximus were privately owned by the time of Pope Gregory in the early 600s, as well as that the Senate of Rome seems to have died out sometime in the early to mid 600s.
I don't know all that much about early medieval Rome aside from the general decline in population and the reappropriation of ancient structures to build Christian churches. I am somewhat interested in the low point of the Papacy, so I might revisit the topic one day.
Yes I find this topic incredibly interesting,how Rome gradually became depopulated,what was the last meeting of the senate about? etc
The last show in the Flavian amphitheather/colloseum was a hunt afaik.
As far as I know the term "disenfranchised/enfranchised" arose to refer to Romans under the franks when they got rights to petition the frankish lords.(thats in Gaul ofc).
Byzantine Rome was broken by Justinian ( among other things ) the infastructure was destroyed, the population decreased from 1 million to 30,000 from plague and war... there really isn't much to say about it at the time... Except the catholic church still operated there.... Most of the trade and learning moved to Constantinople.
@@jessefisher1809 Uh no, Rome had a population less than 100,000 by 500 AD. The gothic sieges did devastate it lowering the population even more but Colonization and investment from the eastern administration saw its population stabilize around 80-100k.
A multitude of monasteries were built in the city under the Byzantines. This saw eastern and Greek literature, medicine, philosophy etc translated from Greek, Syrian and Coptic to Latin. Infact Rome remained the best place to learn Greek in the West until the 800s.
The number of Syrian popes during Byzantine rule speaks for itself of the eastern Ecclesiastical migration to Rome during its time under Byzantine rule.
It remained the number 1 city of ecclesiastical importance in the Byzantine west and 2nd most important city in Byzantine Italy after Ravenna.
Source: A Companion to Byzantine Italy composed by Salvatore Cosentino.
@@tylerellis9097 I'm not seeing anything mutually exclusive here... except maybe the population, and that is just comparing one estimate to another. Lets say you're right. Its 100,000. Still a lot less than Constantinople. And to me thats illuminated by the lack of sources. But I'll admit I'm not an expert in the area. So what statement did I make that you had a problem with exactly?
Great job, dude. Loved this.
most documentaries are a sentence of less, then silence or irritating music, pictures, thus mostly fluff.
here you get 'your money's worth,' a solid, fast paced and exceptionally informative lecture (though I'm not sure about the opinion's expressed by the professor's cat)
Interesting history lesson
All I could hear was meowww meowww lmao..But on another note, thanks for this great video
When Hamilcar Barca invaded Spain, did he have the full backing of Carthage or was this more of his personal plan to create a seperate empire for the Barca family? I heard or read somewhere that there was some bad blood between Hamilcar and the Carthaginian senate after the First Punic War.
He was given a commission to expand into Spain, but there was bad blood with the "Africa-first" faction led by Hanno the Great and just as with the Romans, anyone who achieved a little too much success would be seen as something of a threat.
@@ThersitestheHistorian interestingly enough, "Africa first" was not a bad policy at all and had the Carthaginians achieved the same lvl of unity that Rome had with Italy and then pushed out into Spain. History might have been very different. Carthage would have had a hinterland to soak up invasions after all.
@@celdur4635 where would the hinterland be lol, Sahara?
@@cv4809 Lets review history, Carthage lost because their allies/subjects provided her with cavalry, and they made a deal with Rome and turned on Carthage. Controlling the hinterland means that they would be secure in the rear and nothing like this would've happened. Now, geography lesson, first of all, back in those days the northern african coast was extremely fertile and productive, no wonder why Carthage was so successful, it was, after Egypt, the second largest provider of grain and foodstuffs for the Roman Empire for example. Even today the African coastline has quite the temperate weather and is "green" up until the Atlas mountains, back in the day this temperate area extended further south. Carthage was a trading power with colonies, yes, but it was basically just 1 (massive) city, as i said before, it didn't have the same control over the African hinterland that Rome had with Italy. And finally, yes, the Sahara as fabulous "wall", if an army is denied a major city, port or supplies in general, there is literally nowhere to go, Cesar almost ended its career when caught out of position in northern africa, south of Carthage. One last tidbit, some historians say that, the changing weather that made north africa less productive was one of the key factors for the fall of the Western Empire, since it was supposed to be "its Egypt" like the Eastern half had. But it was less and less productive with each passing decade.
I don't find it odd that when you were speaking of the Temple of Vesta that kitty was evident in the background.
She has very strong feelings about the Temple of Vesta.
That’s why Ben Hur rescued Pompey after the battle and Pompey gave him power.
“No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full.”
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
I like Sulla. My medulla likes Sulla! Such a man! Loved by his friends, dreaded by his enemies, adored by the plebes. Whats not to like?
"My medulla likes sulla" hits different 🤣🤣🤣
I thought I had a coyote in my back yard at 1st until I realized it was coming from this video.
Your commentary is awesome, however, not meaning to nit pick, but i kind of resent that you choose to support the use of BCE - CE vs. BC-AD
Not everyone wants to use Christian references.
If Mark Anthony won would the Republic have continued? I have heard people speculate this but he was making all his kids future kings so I doubt this.
Well, he was already dictator of the east(Trumvir). In the minds of Romans, "The Republic" never ended. It continued to be called that all through to the late empire, and all through the Byzantine era. To Romans, "Res/Rei Publica" meant something more like "The Commonwealth." and the eras were separated more into "the aristocracy" and "the monarchy."
I'm hearing a cat in the background a few times
My cat sometimes walks through the house and yells. I'm not sure if the new mic will be as sensitive to that.
@@ThersitestheHistorian so cute
Thersites the Historian its better, in your older videos it often sounded like there was a zombie in your house 🙄😂
@@der110 That was my dog with dementia during his pace and whine phase. He is now more of a silent pacer.
So what happened during the Middle Ages? I’ve heard you mention that the Pope mentioned the ruins as evidence of God’s wrath (or something similar) and to spend funds elsewhere. So how long were these magnificent buildings in use? Which were destroyed or converted? Did the city shrink to the Serbian walls (Servian?) before eventually growing?
It always baffles me that anyone would allow such great structures to decay and at least not take advantage of them other than potential building materials. Of course I don’t know if local architects eventually left or forgot how.
Most of the buildings were not being used and when the Church was building a new structure, they would often remove pieces of ancient monuments to use as construction materials. For the most part, they were probably salvaging stuff from buildings which had collapsed, although in the case of the Flavian Amphitheater, they removed some metal pieces used for bracing the walls while leaving the building standing. Essentially, the leaders of the Church were indifferent to the fate of the ancient monuments and saw them mostly as a source of building supplies.
Thersites the Historian
Thank you for clarifying. That makes sense🙏👌
"chief job of not having sex" thats tough
Hey did I just see a video about US presidents by you? Where has it gone
It hasn't been made yet, so I don't know how you saw it. Interestingly enough, I am actually about to start recording it with Sean in about 10 minutes.
@@ThersitestheHistorian 10 us presidents ranked by historical significance, did I just dream that?
@@papageitaucher618 Oh yeah, that video does exist. It hasn't gone anywhere.
@@ThersitestheHistorian Lol youre right sorry
ROMA AETERNA
So Rome started the 2nd Punic war? I was always taught Carthage initiated the war
That’s what those Romans WANTED you to think!
Well, the first capital of the empire. Then it decays away for centuries. It had to resort to hijacking religion to survive.
to some voting has not changed or the reason not to vote
Empires*
I want to know more about Roman feces
Commenting6 hours later 12 comment
In the time of Pompey, "Palestine" was called Judea. Most academics don't call it that, I wonder why.
No, in the time of Pompey it was just know as Syria. I believe it was Dioclitian or a later emperor to call it Palestine because it annoyed the Jews. The Philistei were also from that area but in animosity with the Jews.
Judea became a separate province from Syria late in Augustus's reign(called "Judea"). It was governed from Caesarea by an Equestrian Procurator who answered to the governor of Syria.
After 70ad, it became fully independent of Syria, and after the Judean war of 132-135, Judea became a full consular province(run by a governor of consular rank), and the name was changed to "Syria Palestina" by emperor Hadrian, and the name stuck, and still does today. It's okay to call the region "Palestine." "Judea" usually refers to the country of Judea proper, and not the whole province which includes Galilee, Samaria, Idumea, Perea, etc.
150 years later, Diocletian separated all the provinces into smaller ones. Palestine was split into thirds:
Palestina Prima(Palestine #1)
Palestina Secunda(Palestine #2)
Palestina Tertia(Palestine #3)
Too bad Rome didn't industrialize