Ranking Periods of Roman History [Part 2: New Rome]
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- Join the Discord: / discord
Support on Patreon: / romabooramblings
Maps used in the video: lucius-note.net/byzantium/
Book Recommendations:
Peter Heather, Christendom
Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: a New History of Rome and the Barbarians
James Howard-Johnston, The Last Great War of Antiquity
William Rosen, Justinian's Flea
John Haldon, The Empire That Would Not Die
John Haldon, Leslie Brubacker, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era
Eric McGeer, Sowing the Dragon's Teeth
Anthony Kaldellis, Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood
Michael Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204, A Political History
Michael Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile
Donald M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium
Footage:
The Last Legion (2007)
Barbarians Rising (2016)
Viking (2016)
Cyril and Methodius. The Apostles of the Slavs (2013)
Rise of Empires: Ottomans (2020)
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Music:
Imperator: Rome Soundtrack - We The People
Imperator Rome: Soundtrack - Civil War
Total War: Atilla Soundtrack - Hun Theme
Imperator Rome: Soundtrack - Dawn of Destiny
Crusader Kings 3 Soundtrack - Fate of Iberia: War Music
Crusader Kings 2 Soundtrack - Journey to Absolution
Crusader Kings 2 Soundtrack - Komnenos
Crusader Kings 2 Soundtrack - The Fifth Crusade
Crusader Kings 2 Soundtrack - The Byzantine Empire
00:00 Intro
00:36 Christianization
02:00 The Fall of the West
04:26 The End of Antiquity
06:43 The Struggle with the Caliphate
08:25 The Iconoclasm
10:42 Macedonian Restoration
12:40 Komnenoi Era
14:38 The Splintered Empire
16:50 Late Byzantium
19:19 Recap
![Ranking Periods of Roman History [Part 1: Old Rome]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7j_mhC4lxV4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Ranking Periods of Roman History [Part 1: Old Rome]](/img/tr.png)
''We live in a period'' - Stilicho probably
A period with the stupidest emperors.
My wife has pmpd. This exactly describes my life...
Ps. great work on that commie troglodyte back in Mexico.
"We live in a sciety, wiCkkt crates a sAeTy.?"
Meditations - Marcus Aurelius, after seeing fucking commodus being so cringe that cômodo is a word in portuguese meaning object or something that stay still or a thing is satisfied and by that we actually use his name as base to create a word meaning that capital sin that prevents you from doing others as you're too silly
@@dmitritelvanni4068?
@@Chaika1974 "the ice pick that killed trotsky"
They need to make a series on the assassination of Maurice by Phocus to the end of Heraclius' reign. Tons of drama and good storytelling there.....a true roman/Greek tragedy
Its kinda sad that the only media we have about Heraclius' reign is Dovahatty
Honestly an entire series starting with Roman Republic and ending with fall of Byzantium would be epic. It would be a massive multi season endeavour but it would go down in history.
FAR too depressing and also too topical. The globalist and woke types would SCREAM at a series that showed a wave of invading Muslim hordes in their true proportions.
Yeah. Maurice was a great patriot.
@@markkonzerowsky8871 There's plenty of uplifting parts. When Heraclius overthrows Phocus, piecing the empire back together and winning, and bringing the true cross back to Jeruselum.
Leo III and Constantine V were great Emperors; there is no doubt about it. The latter actually followed his father's example who originated from Syria, a place not particularly fond of symbols, and now was at the hands of the unbelievers. They blamed the icons and the monks for the calamity of the last century's losses, and they created such a completely unnecessary turmoil for over 150 years.
Alexios I and John II were great patriots. I think that Theodore I was also a great lad, and the 2nd Palaiologean Civil War brings tears to my eyes. I mean, what were they thinking?
Its unfortunate that the struggle for survival of the pre-crusade era Empire and the fight with Islam of the 7th century isn't as well researched or popular because it makes for a very good narrative.
Earth is flat. You can’t flap dif fos or just ignore the phone’s camera and know focal distortoo up on is form elections. You’re believing I. I sense history oertold from a globe.
There is a slight number error in the first part when you mistakenly typed the year 295 instead of 395. But overall it is a fairly comprehensive and objective assessment of the periods of Rome from the 4th century onwards.
Thanks for pointing it out. Me making typos in dates is becoming a tradition
@@RomabooRamblings I pointed out that error because I didn't want it to affect the video quality. I hope you don't think I'm someone who likes to pick on other people's mistakes :>
@@harrylancer6068 I think it's good you pointed it out. He can put the correction in a pinned comment, so everyone will know the real date. It could have been 395, 495, etc.
295 and Christianisation? Diocletian would’ve been appalled. Horrified and disgusted.
Oh damn, I'm sad that the Struggle with the Caliphate is so unpopular, it's one of my favorite periods. But as a Komnenian fangirl I am 100% in support of how you rate the Komnenoi, no bias.
nice channel.
Same. The 'Crisis of the 7th Century' (as I like to see it defined) was a truly titanic struggle for the Romans to overcome, battling against the Persians, the Slavs, and the Caliphates.
Nice channel i liked your video about the fractures empire
Nice channel i liked your video about the fractures empire
The gross incandescence of the Crisis of the Third Century is undeniable, but I cannot ignore Heraclius. From start to finish, it's an incredible tale.
I'd add aside from some big battles in all stuff that in the late period Trebizond reaches some heights as a trade center with some cool rulers
also 10th-11th century has Simeon, Svyatoslav, Saif, Skleros and Samuel as antagonists
Remote Trebizond seems a romantic place.
Glad to see i wasnt the only one who noticed their is a huge interest in Iconoclasm Macedonian and Komnenoi Era (717-1204)
Honestly my favorite time period in the east is from about the rise of Heraclius to the fall of the Amorian dynasty. The coins of that era are so interesting to me in that they are generally of poor quality, with some exceptions, and something about that hits the right spot in my brain. You can see how the emperors copied each others' coins (see Constans II with his wicked beard copying his father's design of him flanked by his two heirs like they're doing a PowerPoint presentation), the faces and figures become almost abstract, usurpers sometimes don't bother making more than one or two designs for coins, it's all so cool to me. For similar reasons I also really enjoy the last 100 years of the west and the last couple Palaiologians, the Stavratons got weird near the end
That's excatly what I've been looking for, glad that someone else likes the heraclian dynasty as well. Like people are often complaining that they lost all of Africa, Levant, half of Italy and Balkans to various enemies but in the same time forget that what they managed to do is to keep the empire alive and also its pretty strong position! Speaking about numismatics however, that's true that Constans II gladly copied his grandfather, however the late emissions of Constantine IV and basically most of Justinian II's are absolutely stunning and reminding the artistic good old times of the united roman empire :)
@@panadar4217 exactly !! The heraclian revolt and the ensuing sassanid war is one of the most amazing comeback stories in history. Constantine's coins are definitely beautiful, and I have a Justinian II coin that is one of my favorites, there are a lot of downright beautiful coins in the Heraclian dynasty especially. I also enjoy how scuffed some of heraclius's coins can be though, I have a follis of his that's overstruck on a follis of phocas, which itself was overstruck on a follis of Maurice. Its stuff like that that makes that era's coins so interesting to me, it's a nice departure from other eras when so many coins are minted perfectly without blunders
For me the early 6th century through the 9th century are the most interesting periods of the Eastern Roman Empire, since they're not talked about a lot. If you think about it, the Iconoclastic heresy was the reason Rome fell in 1204.
Agreed, the Lazican war is pretty fun and undercovered.
@@ari3903 I am Georgian so it's extra fun/sad :D
no
@@barrett206 Yes
The franks conquered the western Roman Empire. Leaving the East as Rome. There was no division.
“That whole crusade situation didn’t pan out well for the empire, did it.” Well that’s an understatement and a half
14:38 Wonderful, absolutely wonderful. This is my favorite period throughout all of history. I'm glad that you mentioned that to do research on this period you need to look at a comical amount of plotlines and characters, because most people breeze over this timespan as if it wasn't even a competition and that Nicaea was going to inevitably take over after a bit.
I think you should have mentioned the works of Geoffrey of Villehardouin at least at one point in it though, the Latin perspective is still gravely looked over and for the first three years of the period I think HE'S the best source, even more so than Choniates.
The Struggle against the Caliphate is lowkey underrated. I got into Eastern Roman history because of the Twenty Years' Anarchy. The Heraclians were pretty based guys.
3:03 This is why TW Attila is my favorite TW cause of how dire the situation is and how it feels like the end of the world for the first 30 years of the game. Until finally in the 430's when you finally can get some true stability and start the march into Germania
The "Fall of the West" is so fascinating, the more you learn about it the more puzzling it becomes, the barbarian kingdom of Theodoric seems to fill Rome shaped hole in Western Europe by obtaining fealty of the Visigoths in Spain, reclaiming the Balkans, submitting the Burgundians and Vandals.
Yeah I think it's a really good breakdown and tierlist overall. Though I think the only truly S-Tier period is and can be the Fall of the Republic/Rise of the Empire period, because you never get a more dynamic sequence of events and people quite like the Sulla to Caesar to Augustus triple civil war even as Rome grows in scope and power sequence again.
That whole period is so strong it makes the case for great man history all on its own and every person who detracts from that view gets reaaaallly quiet if you bring it up as a counterpoint to materialist history or whatever nonsense they're peddling.
And i was wondering where romaboo went
ey, I wasn't missing that long
Great overview, well done!
Good picks, honestly. Outside of some of those almost mythical heroic adventures of antiquity, the 12th Century might be the single most interesting time period in human history, and that's true for Byzantium as much as the rest of the world.
The real question here is if we're getting a Holy Roman tier list. Loving historical narratives about grasping with religious leaders and interpretation, the fragility (or glory) of Empire, and the legacy of Rome isn't complete without acknowledging the larger than life characters and stories of people like Charlemagne, Frederick Barbarossa, or any of the Ottonians.
I'm not that well-versed in history of the HRE to adequately rank its parts.
That being said, the fall of the Hohenstaufen is an easy top 1.
I don’t see how Germanic barbarians are in any way relevant to the video.
Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁👍
Ty for giving me some books to read and become more romanized. Love your videos as always
15:01 Fr fr, all the various Crusader leaders and Byzantine successor states vying for control felt like a GOT novel.
Very nice short serie. My favorite is the end of antiquity.
For me, my favourite periods from this list would be:
- The Middle Republic
- The Late Republic
- The Fall of the West
- The Struggle with the Caliphate
- The Macedonian Restoration
- The Splintered Empire
This is a brilliant video, I'd love it if you did a video on the scholarly debates around each period, as well as a discussion on the best recent secondary literature for each period, as at times Byzantine History can feel fairly insular
Thanks for the book recommendations. Nice to not need to guess what's an interesting portrayal of the period.
All hail Basil II!.
I wonder whether the Constantinian period would have been less chaotic if Constantine Crispus survived, he was the most like his father as in being a military genius in his own right.
Fcking Fausta ruining everything
I would love to see you do some videos about some of the sources. I noticed you had a picture of Zosimus, and I really enjoyed reading Zosimus, I would love to hear what you think of him, procopius, theophanes, and earlier histories like dio and Tacitus. Also, I'm pretty sure you're one of the only rome CZcamsrs who actually reads them and not just Wikipedia.
The best is yet to come
Intriguing ranking of Roman history periods, highlighting lesser-known eras. While I don't necessarily agree with all your personal favorites, I appreciate your emphasis on strong narratives and diverse characters. Particularly interesting is the focus on the underappreciated "Iconoclasm" and "Splintered Empire" periods. Your recommendations for further reading are valuable too. Overall, a thought-provoking analysis that encourages viewers to explore beyond the usual suspects in Roman history.
Imo the best periodization of Roman history I saw goes something like:
-Kingdom (753 BC to 509BC)
- Early Republic (509BC to 264BC)
- Middle Republic (264BC to 146BC)
- Late Republic (146BC to 27 BC)
- Principate (27BC to 235)
- Crisis of the 3rd Century (235 to 284)
- Dominate (284 to 602)
- Crisis of the 7th Century (602 to 718)
- Early Basilean (718 to 867)
- Middle Basilean (867 to 1081)
- Late Basilean (1081 to 1204)
- Interregnum (1204 to 1261)
- Despotate (1261 to 1453)
I agree up to Principate.
The 3rd century crisis occurred under the principate. It is also a modern historiographic term, not used by contemporaries.
- Principate (27 BC-284)
- Dominate (284-395)
- WRE (395-476)
- early ERE (395-717)
- middle ERE (717-1081)
- late ERE (1081-1204)
- succession (1204-1453)
@@Michael_the_Drunkard But couldn't you say that the 3rd Century Crisis was a period in its own right that saw the destruction of the systems of the Principate?
My personal favorites are The Late Roman Empire, the 9th and 8th centuries of Eastern Rome, and the time of St Constantine.
Late Roman Republic, The End of Antiquity and the Komnenoi are S but hot take here the Kingdom Period was A tier, super underrated.
I just can't get over knowing so little about it
I've always liked the chaos between the Fourth Crusade and the Nicaean Reconquest, it's just such a great mix of memorable characters, complex politics and wars that brings out the whole Late Republic era nostalgia. And it's weidly hopeful as well, as the empire has fallen to its lowest yet, and there's nowhere to go but up.
@@RomabooRamblings Knowing little about it is part of its appeal to me, although I do understand why that’s a drawback for most people.
@@KaiHung-wv3ul I honestly think it's the most underrated period of wider Roman history. There's such interesting political maneuvering to reclaim Constantinople, and any of the successor states (Epirus, Nicaea, Trebizond) could have become the new official dynasty (with Epirus/Thessalonica coming close until Klokotnitsa)
The relationship with Bulgaria during the period takes many twists and turns and the Latins, though incompetent, are almost kind of amusing to read about because of just *how* incompetent they really are.
Oh, and the battle of Antioch on the Meander alone is an unbelievable thing to read about. Reads like something out of a book.
To be fair to the Christianization Arc.
Its not that interesting because of the relative stability brought on by Constantine, that nothing much big happened while the empire was governed by capable rulers, like Constantius, Valentinian, Valens and Theodosius.
Does not help either that Christianity's battles went from being eaten by lions to boring debates
Exactly, plus it’s the only time you get to see the West hold things together relatively well. For a while it looked like both East and West would survive just fine.
I hope you do a series on basil ii or john I as you did for nikephoros II
Could you pretty please put your book recommendations that you mention in the description?
As always great video.
Sureps, will add it tomorrow, not on the PC rn
@@RomabooRamblings Thanks bro sub
The Fall of the West will always be my favorite. The politics around a dying empire as general and emperors have to fight foes both at home and abroads is both exciting and tragic.
You were cooking when you chose the TW Attila soundtrack for part 2
The mid Republican era, the Macedonian Dynasty, the late Republic, the Khomenian Dynasty and the Crusades, and the Crisis of the Third Century are my favorite periods of Roman history to study.
Justinian the great, didn’t kno anything abt him! Thx!
The 3rd century is a vert intersting era that unfortunately we have little information.
I find facinating the difficulty to earn legitimacy during this period, you could be a heir of the previous emperor, the favourite of the Senate, a crafty politician, a victorious general, a mixture of all and still be usurped.
It is the story of a state that ceased to perform its most basic functions and almost crumbled into many lesser kingdoms but still managed to turn around and create the foundations to last another thousand years. We don't have many real life examples of that.
Imho you kinda undersold the fourth and eighth centuries. 4th shows how mightly and urban Christian Rome was despite everything, while the sheer determination to fight through the grimdark Arab raids is equally impressive in another depressing way.
ı missed this video now ı am here
This is the cooler part of Roman history
Totally agree the “fall” is not accurate. The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn’t exist.
Amorian erasure!
Partly eclipsed by the lustre of their supplanters, partly by the artificial date of 843 which divides their dynasty into two halves.
The splintered empire is just, the best period in ALL of history
Same. It's crazy to read about once you get into it.
Do you have any recommendations for good modern reads on the Komnenoi era?
my favourite period of the late Roman empire is the late 8th and early 9th century if you know that I mean finally got back at those Germanic barbarians
I'd love a coop/talk about this with Schwerpunkt. His Roman/Byzantine history series is MASSIVE
Didnt he say The Eastern Romans arent Roman?
Is there a video Romaboo deleted? I can't find this video about how life was like for ordinary citizens
bro, I never made one (yet)
Rome is a one of a kind empire imo
My interest in history is mostly Western Europe but sometimes I read about Byzantium.
My favorite periods of Byzantine history are: Heraclius, The Macedonian Dynasty and Komenian Dynasty.
My favorite periods of Roman History are:Early Republic(Unification of Italy to The Punic Wars),Late Republic,The Principate, Some of the Crisis of the Third Century and The Fall of the West.
By the way The Palaiolagos Dynasty was to be one of the most incompetent dynasties in European History.
You can't put the periods of the united Roman Empire and the WRE under the category "Roman" but put the history of the ERE into the separate category "Byzantine".
It is an arbitrary and pointless distinction. After 395, both empires were equally Roman.
If you're going to divide the history of Rome into separate categories then be consistent and do the same with the WRE.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard What part in the phrase "My interest in history is mostly Western Europe" didn't you understand?
Everybody is talking about Justinian "the Great Spender" and nobody- NOBODY -ever mentions my favorite: Anastasios "the fiscally prudent"!
Forgive me for being nitpicky (I love dates and classifications), but some of your dates for these specific periods seem rather peculiar. I was hoping you could elaborate on why you chose:
1) 65 BC as the beginning of the Triumvirates, when the First Triumvirate apparently wasn't formed until 59 BC (unless your dating has something to do with Pompey)
2) 161 AD as the beginning of the decline of the Principate. That's when Marcus Aurelius became emperor, not Commodus.
3) 717 for the end of the struggle with the Caliphate. I assume you're referring to the end of the Arab siege of Constantinople as the cut off date, but that wasn't till 718.
4) 1460 as the definitive end of the empire, rather than 1453. Though, I understand that it's debatable whether the empire truly fell in 1453, 1460, 1461, or 1479.
Hello! Can you give link to byzantium maps what you showed in your video?
sure, added it to the description
@@RomabooRamblingsThank you!
Since I'm from Russia, I would be interested to hear your opinion one day about research that affects Byzantium; in our country this is a fairly popular topic for scientific research (I would even say as popular as in the West). Of course, many works are very tendentious - they either concentrate on religion, or try to present the entire history of the Eastern Roman Empire under the sauce “Russia is the legal successor of Byzantium, and Putin is the bearer of Roman ideals,” but among all this darkness there are also good studies that concentrate on internal politics, personalities, reforms, conquests, victories and tragedies of the common population. I don’t know if these works have ever been translated into English, but if so, I advise you to take a look.
@@user-pb7ch5kl8xWhat arguments do they use to justify the view that Russia is the legal successor of Byzantium? Orthodox Christianity? I just find that interesting as I have heard that even the Ottomans claim the legacy of Rome.
@@rubz1390 There is the idea of "Moscow - the Third Rome" which is based on the Byzantine autocracy or tsarizm/samoderjavie (russian version of absolute monarchy) and on the idea of the identity of culture and religion. Of course, Russia inherited many things from Byzantium, because these two states had close contact, both political and cultural. But I think that the modern government in Russia so strongly wants to associate itself with Byzantium, simply because it is convenient, especially if a number of concepts are replaced. For example, take away from Byzantium everything that makes it a Western country, instead presenting it as USSR 0.1. (come up with the idea that there was no discrimination at all in terms of culture or class division). Considering how modern Russia is at war with the West, it is also convenient to blame the conditional West for the fall of Byzantium in 1204 (the intrigues of the Dinates, the unsuccessful reign of the Angel dynasty and a bunch of socio-economic problems are missed from this narrative).
Thus, for the common man who does not know all the nuances of the history of Byzantium, the following picture is obtained - there was a utopian empire in which everything was fine, which had a unique faith, culture and multinational society. And then evil people from the East and West came and destroyed it. And just as Byzantium should not have trusted the West, Russia should not have relations with it.
A clear example of how power destroys the historical narrative for a beautiful analogy.
@@user-pb7ch5kl8x Thank you for the context. I fear alot of history has been muddied for political narratives all across places of the world. It is concerning that in the far future information may no longer exist for people to dispel such political narratives. I often wonder what myths people in future will believe from our own time.
5:35 Oh, link to the map.
Why do u say the Roman Empire ends in 1460? Didnt ignatious loyola start the jesuits in the 1500s? Wasn’t he in the Catholic Church? Isn’t the Catholic Church still around today?
What happened after 1460? We have a lot to discuss.. sickkk vid brudda
👍
greek fire go go
Армысыз! Здравствуйте! Hello! Romaboo Ramblings
Thank you for using its proper name, New Rome, instead of that bs term, called "Byzantium". 💯
For me medieval rome is more interesting
I dont agree with your assessment of the Lage Antique period. I believe, for the newest Roman Historians, the Late Antique Period is by far the most interesting qualities simply because of the "loosing" going on. We, as a newer group of historians look at this period because of the decline simply to learn from this decline so we can recognize and change possible similarities that we see in our own timeline. Furthermore, it's also imperative TO LOOK t the fact That the EATERN romans were still strong enough to survive the Muslim conquests whilst their rival, the Sassanids QUIKLY FOLDED. PERHAPS it owes much to Geography, but I simply believe the Eastern Romans WERE STILL COMPETANT AND Strong enough to hold true to their existence on the world stage.
Bruh, no interesting rivals in the Macedonian age??? What about the Bulgarian Empire-khanate, Simeon the Great and Bizantine-Bulgar wars?
Don't forget Sviatoslav of Kiev and Sayf-al Dawla of Aleppo!
No Carolingians? No HRE? Sad!
They're bootleg Rome.
I think the “cheistianization” period is fascinating, bc really Constantine’s adaptation of “Christianity” was not sincere, and the Roman Empire was (and still is) pagan at its core.
micheal VIII isn't so bad
20 years anarchy fans gonna clown you
Can we finally stop mentioning Edward Gibbon? No scientific-minded historians takes him seriously. I'm starting to get a real disgust from person-oriented hero-history.
Roman history without real Romans 👍
damn latins
That book by Peter sounds like total propaganda
After 476 C.E it is known as the Byzantine empire. Otherwise it's confusing just for the sake of puritanism and terminology.
Just accept that Rome didn't fall in 476.
I see this conditioning in many people, I blame the bad British documentaries. 476 was not a cut-off moment, after which everything can be redefined. The fall of the WRE had limited influence.
"Demagoguery"...what are you,a wokester?pfff.
Do you mean the byzantine history? Clickbait is getting out of hand
@@1805bbd "if you now how to read" Learn to write before giving advice on how to read
There is no such empire as byzantine.
Get you head checked
@@TonyFontaine1988 Next thing you'll tell us is that East Roman history is the heritage of the Italians and the Western Europeans.
There is a reason the term Byzantine is used and no, it's not to throw a shade at it, don't worry.
He has explained his views regarding this before. You don't have to agree with him but he is free to view it the way he does.
I'M SORRY, WILLIAM, I FORGOT TO PUT THE FUCKING K, BUT THE WORSE IS YOU DON'T KNOW ROMAN HISTORY.@@WilliamRP263