Why Did Nobody Try To Restore The Western Roman Empire... Or Did They ?
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 22. 05. 2024
- Get 51% OFF any premium World Anvil subscription with code "MAIORIANUS" www.worldanvil.com/?c=maiorianus.
Thanks to World Anvil for sponsoring this video!
đŽ YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? đŽ
đ€ Join our Patreon community: / maiorianus
đ Or become an official Maiorianus member on CZcams: / maiorianus461
đ The official Maiorianus merch store is now OPEN:
maiorianus.myspreadshop.com
âïž SPQR Shop, excellent hand-crafted Roman rings and other items:
spqrshop.com/?sca_ref=4770010...
Enter the code "Maiorianus" to get a 20% discount on every purchase. The ideal present for any fan of Rome đ!
The wonderful background music is by Adrian von Ziegler: âą Relaxing Roman Music -...
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.
đ€ One-Time Donation?
- PayPal: paypal.me/Maiorianus
- Bitcoin: bc1qv4lsfsplvfecrrgvmfclhga28we7mvh9563xdj
đ Share the video with anyone who might be interested (it helps a ton!)
đŹ Contact us: maiorianus.sebastian@gmail.com
#Maiorianus - VÄda a technologie
Get 51% OFF any premium World Anvil subscription with code "MAIORIANUS" www.worldanvil.com/?c=maiorianus.
Thanks to World Anvil for sponsoring this video!
Long live maiorianus
And the most important case everyone forget... formation of European Union. It actually worked.
most romans always complained about the climate at rome during summer. Constantinople must have been healthier
@@commentfreely5443 It was more a center of major trade routes between Black and Mediterranean seas. Plus it was way more safer then Italy, what was already raided several times.
The heirs of the Byzantine Empire can be considered the Venetian Republic and the Duchy of Rome (Papal States). Since they were once provinces of Byzantium as part of the autonomous Ravenna Exarchate!
Theodoric the Great definitely deserves to be an honorary Western Roman. He even appointed a prefect of Gaul at one point.
I'm glad that he was included. Truly, a Goth who cared about Roman civilization more than many Romans themselves.
13:10 Actually John VIII Palaiologos visited Rome in 1423, then part of the Papal States. This made him (technically) the last "Roman Emperor" to set foot in the old capital of Rome. In 1439 He went back to Italy to meet Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence for the unification of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. John VIII Palaiologos also converted to Catholicism. Unfortunately the Church Union failed, and only little troops were sent to help in Costantinople in 1453.
Methinks the writing was on the wall when it all went belly up at Manzikert.
â@@howardrisby9621 1204 more so.
Legend says even King Arthur planned to restore the Empire, even defeating a rival claimant... But then, in classical Britannic fashion, Morded rebelled.
That's because certain aspects of Arthurian legend were influenced by actual late Roman history - the rebellions of Magnus Maximus in 383 and Constantine III in 407.
Arthur was also inspired by Charlemagne with a great many of his tales spun from those of the founder of the Frankish Emperor.
Hahah King Arthur⊠thats a fairytale brother.
@@hanihudini98 So?
Why did nobody try to restore the roman empire?
Charlemagne:đ
Legitimately the basis for the centuries-long rivalry between France and Germany
He didn't actually try to restore the Western Roman Empire. The Pope simply handed out the "vacant" title of "Emperor of Rome" to him, to the chagrin of the Greco-Roman nobility in the East.
Tbf, he tried to marry Empress Irene of Constantinople in an attempt to make amends but the latter was deposed before it could happen.
@@Arbelot i disagree, not only were most of his people romanii and spoke latin dialects, he made them all citicans (when christian, what was already a fact), and he tried to restore all roman features as much as he could incl. administration, christianization, architecture etc. What he could have done more to restore it what he didn't do or tried?
This channel is underrated
Not by me it isn't!! đ§
Yeah, tell me about it.
I think about the roman empire unironically almost every day and your channel is a hidden gem. Really great video
Not to forget Benito Mussolini from 1922 to 1943, who dreamed of refounding the Roman Empire; naming it "Third Rome".
Since the first Rome had been founded by Romulus, and the second Rome (Constantinople) by Constantine the Great.
Russia took that title of being the third Rome in Moscow.
â@@jamesofficial6829
One of history's biggest LARPs
@@jamesofficial6829 Russian Tsar Ivan IV's grandmother was Sophia Palaiologina, a Byzantine Princess (her father was
Thomas Palaiologos, the younger brother of the last Roman/Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos). Therefore Ivan IV would have had Byzantine ancestry. And I guess that's why he named himself the first "Tsar" (a.k.a. Caesar) of all Russia. Btw, Thomas Palaiologos escaped from the Osmans to Rome (back to the roots) where he died in 1465 .
@@jamesofficial6829 Also the Ottoman conqueror of Constantinople Mehmet the Second claimed he was the successor of the Caesars as well as Islamic caliph!
Mussolini: I proclaim the restoration of Third Rome...
Russian Empire: đ
The only realistic chance to restore the western Rome was with the chance Belisarius got. But unfortunately he was very loyal general
For real and how unfortunate but he probably wouldn't have succeeded anyway.
@@jamesofficial6829he could have created a state with the capacity to restore it. At the very least he created the capacity for Rome to work towards reclaiming the Mediterranean.
Fun fact: Burdunellus possibly celebrated its coronation as roman emperor in Caesaraugusta, actual Zaragoza (my city), and he reused the old roman circus in the last years of the VI century! Possibly one of the latest roman celebrations in a circus
Was also curious about him when I came across him. Too bad not enough info on him.
Fun fact: your city was for 1000 years in muslim slavery and modern Spainards dont have any connections with BuRdUnELluS as if he existed
To our Host, Love From Taipei. This is my fav channel for 2 yrs now, so don't let yt algorithm beat u! Per Veritatem Vis. Your savvy voice is a must for civilized society worldwide.
Theodoric is my favorite Late Antiquity/Early Middle figure. He was lucky to have a rich dad and be raised among the aristocracy of Constantinople, the story of many self made kings in history, and might have seen the city stand despite the furry of Attila first hand. He united his people with his military and diplomatic skills and then used those talents to seize Italy and Spain, and married his daughters off to the Vandal and Burgundian kings, flanking Clovis and making it very hard for Constantinople to try and take back any territory. At the same time he did more to maintain Roman traditions in Italy than anyone else after Majorian, and otherwise let people just go on about how they've always gone about. Him and Charlesmagne are the only Germanic descended rulers of the first millennium who commanded enough territory to go toe to toe with the Eastern Romans or the Caliphates.
long live maiorianus
Glad you brought in Theoderic the Great. Very overlooked ruler, but probably the most successful of his time ironically.
This is literally my favorite Rome / Late Antiquity channel on YT
I always found these attempts very interesting also, the real last Italian attempt with the so called "Tiberius" in Tuscany always stood out to me. I use to day dream what ifs
Havenât heard of him. Any links?
I think another what may have been was Clovis in 507. His conversion to Chalcedonian Christianity and his triumph at Vouille led to some people calling him Augustus (as we know from Gregory of Tours) and one throwaway line in Avitus of Vienne's letter can be interpreted as a sign that some Gallo-Romans wanted him to take the imperial title since there was now an orthodox ruler in the West as well, not just in Constantinople. But in the end, Clovis was cautious and simply accepted the consulship from Emperor Anastasius.
Barbarians: Hi, we are here to restore you!!!
WRE: Umm right... (Oh, man...)
Rome was in the church, which was sparring for leadership with local military resources. There was no need to restore an imperial court to manage the trade infrastructure machine that the Roman armies had built.
Much awaited, much appreciated looking forward to excellent insights as always from you.
RIP Majorian.
Another great video! Thank you for all the great content!
Nice vid. Nice to listen to as well. Thanks
Yeah, would love to see your take on Charlesmagne. And on Kaisers and Tsars... some things do not ever seem to go away.
Ironically after conquering Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mehmet II proclaimed himself Kayser-i Rûm (Caesar of Rome)
Why ''ironically''?
đŠâïžđâĄđŠ âĄđâïžđŠ
@@NapoleonCalland
Because he was the muslim conqueror that finally finished off the Roman Empire in 1453 (after many centuries of struggle). He massacred the last christian inhabitants of Constatinople and killed the last legit Roman Emperor Constantine XI.
â@@NapoleonCallandWhat Roman institutions did he endorse and spread? He spread Muslim (arab/persian) culture, governance and religion, and claimed to be the head of the Muslim world.
he didnt- but he did call himself kayser-i Rum@@columodonnell9212
Great video! I'm excited for the possibility of videos on the HRE in the future
This is really well done.
1. Theodoric the Amal (the Great) offered his troops to support Julius Nepos' cause, but the emperor rejected the offer out of fear of becoming a puppet of the leader of the Ostrogoths. Theodoric gained approval for his actions from Zeno many years later (or rather Zeno wanted to kick out wandering Ostrogoths outside of his empire), but the death of Zeno released Theodoric from the agreement to bring Italy under Eastern rule.
2. During the war between Odoacer and Theodoric, the former decided to seek approval from the Roman Senate and elevated his son Thela to the rank of "Caesar." This move was somewhat reminiscent of history (Orestes - Romulus), but by choosing a lesser title than emperor ("Augustus"/"Basileus"), Odoacer demonstrated that he was not attempting to usurp the Zeno's throne. Rather, he aimed to assert the independence of the existing realm in Italy while playing by Roman rulebook. After defeat Thela escaped but he was killed few years later.
thought that said "Theodoric the Anal" at first. Historically difficult meticulous micromanager
Mezezius and even Tiberius Petasius (there's an extremely rare solidus on acsearch) actually stuck coinage in their names.
Good job mate
"Good people will always be taken advtange of, so carry an extra blade"
The reason western Roman empire didn't exist was because the eastern Roman empire didn't want it to exist.
Dear Sebastian. I've been watching your videos for a while which I really enjoy. In one of them, you say something like "bad times create strong rulers, strong rulers make good times, good times cause lazy people" something like that. I could not figure out which of your videos this was. But since these words really impressed me I was wondering if you could tell me here. Thanks a lot
Magnificent VĂdeo.
Another really great video on one of my favorite subjects. Do you there's a great historical novel called The Little Emperors about the three British legionaries who tried to become Emperor in 407 (a third one succeeded)...
Hello can you make a video on aurelian.
I am not someone who could use this videos sponsor but it was an interesting idea I'd never heard of...
Constans' plan sounds like a good plan. Centuries too late but I always thought that Rome should have moved their capital, if at all, not to the remote East but to nice operational rapid deployment naval base in Syracuse or maybe Naples or Taranto. They would still have needed a land-deployment capital in Milan or Ravenna (hence the political capital could and probably should have remained in Rome) but the idea is anyhow sound.
The âremote Eastâ contained 2/3 of the population and was vastly wealthier and more urbanized.
@@flaviusjconstantius - Sure. That's what got the Roman Empire (emphasis in "Roman" = of Rome) going. It was not the Greek or the Dacian Empire, the Syrian or the Egyptian Empire, mind you. Once Italy's centrality was abandoned (primarily by Diocletian), talking of "Roman Empire" is mere pretense and could only result, as it happened, in the decline and collapse of the West, Italy and Rome included. At least Galerius had the decendy of proposing to rename it "Dacian Empire" but Diocletian and the other tetrarchs didn't want to be that sincere, no matter that they also hated Rome, so much that Diocletian almost died of rage after finally visiting the city at the end of his rulership.
Anyway, for the East even, Athens or Corinth, would have make a much more central capital. Byzantium is almost Sarmatia (and yes, I'm of sailor traditions, shipping, armies even, is generally faster and more efficient than walking). Navigare est necessere, Constantinopla non est necessere. Even the Vandals knew that much...
@@LuisAldamizthe claim that Galerius wished to rename the empire to the âDacian Empireâ is almost certainly fictitious. It is only recorded by Lactantius, a Christian and tutor of Constantineâs children. Naturally, it would make sense for him to want to malign arguably the most vicious persecutor of Christianity.
@@LucasMoldovan-hl8xq - That doesn't "malign" Galerius at all, it's rather a positive thing to say about him: too honest for politics. Also Lactantius was thus a close character to the time and events of the first Tetrarchy. For what I read, he worked in the Diocletian administration and was close to Sosianus Herocles, governor of Syria, and to the Pagan philosopher Porphyry. It was in this context where he met both Galerius and Constantine.
Anyway, "si non Ă© vero, Ă© bene trovatto" (if it's not true, it is (at least) well told), the proposal of renaming the Empire after the radical Diocletian shift, which denatured it and made it into actually something very very different of what had been until that point, makes better sense than retaining the old name of a state that was no more but in name.
To me it's almost as if the British Empire moved its capital to Bombay but retained its name... and future people, speaking maybe evolved Chinese or Swahili, would be arguing: "the British Empire did not fall until 3500, when the neo-Somali Empire conquered Bombay in a legendary siege". And there comes another and says: "but the Neo-Somalis reclaimed the title, along with the post-postmodern Mega-Maga-Caliphate and declared war on Singapore for that very reason, because there could only be one British Emperor (or Empress) on Earth" blah-blah-blah. Been there, done that... and I'm sure that Rome ended either with Diocletian or at most with the Visigothic sack or Rome of 410. All the rest is epilogue and claimants, nostalgia and pretense of legitimacy, not the real thing.
@@LuisAldamiz yeah, it wouldnât be like that at all. Unlike the British and Indians, who shared virtually nothing in common, Romans and Greeks were pretty intertwined. Thereâs a reason we say âGraeco-Romanâ. As Horace said, âGraecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio.â (Conquered Greece took captive her savage conqueror and brought her arts into rustic Latium). As for Galerius, it was certainly meant to be an insult. Lactantius clearly singles him out as the main instigator and villain of the persecutions. He also resigned his post around the time of the persecutions due to his conversion.
Who will be the topic of the sequel?
First, there is Charlemagne, who was crowned Emperor in Rome in 800, but his Frankish Empire declined after his death and broke apart.
Second, there is Otto the Great, who was crowned Emperor in Rome in 962. This Empire did survive until 1806.
Third, there is Ivan the Great, who was seen as the true successor of the Eastern Roman Emperors by many eastern christians after the fall of Constantinople.
Fourth, there is Napoleon, who successfully replaced a dying empire (the HRE was dying since 1648) with a new one. But it did not last long.
Syagrius held out in Soissons for ten years after the last emperor abdicated, until Clovis the Frank finished him off. Additionally the Byzantine emperor Justinian managed to reconquer Italy, North Africa, and part of Spain.
You may also consider Arnaldo da Brescia (c. 1090 - June 1155), who briefly recreated the Roman Republic (1144-1193) following an uprising against the Papacy.
Majorian tried his best to restore the empire. Probably the only competent emperor in the final 100 years of the west.
im not sure if this has been brought up but @Maiorianus_Sebastian could you please sell the shirt that you were wearing in the video it looked like a late roman tunic would love to know where to get one of those.
The heirs of the Byzantine Empire can be considered the Venetian Republic and the Duchy of Rome (Papal States). Since they were once provinces of Byzantium as part of the autonomous Ravenna Exarchate!
No
venice is a succesor state of western rome, but i would disagree on the pope
Great video. I was unaware of these attempts by westerners to re-establish Roman power in the west.
Just some idle speculation here, but the a powerful force in the lives of Romans that pressed against the true restoration of a Western Emperor (at least one in Rome) would likely have been what was then âthe Bishop of Romeâ. Because while his counterparts in Constantinople, Alexandria, etc, had to answer to and effectively served at the behest of the Eastern Emperor, he became unchecked and the most uniting cultural authority in the former Western Empire. The Papacy would not have become the distinct institution it did by the Middle Ages (thus leading to the Schism) if it had been held in check by caesaropapism like the Byzantine Patriarchs.
I heard Pope Leo III crowning Charlemagne as "Imperator Romanorum" (Holy Roman Emperor) was thought to be the Pope's attempt to revive the Western Roman Empire.
In 962 the German (East Frankish) King Otto the Great was crowned Emperor of the Romans in the city of Rome; same as Charlemagne in 800. All their successors were Holy Roman Emperors. The Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation) lastet until 1806 (= First Reich).The Germans (or East Franks) later revived their Empire from 1871 until 1918 (Second Reich). The Third Empire (or Third Reich) by the Nazis was even shorter. The Holy Roman Emperors were named "Kaiser" in German language, which derives from latin "Caesar"...(yes Julius ;-)
In the medieval era everyone called themselves âRoman Emperorâ But now we all know that this is totally BS. The last Roman emperor in my opinion was Justinian, who is also the last proven who spoke Latin as a native language
I feel like the reason why Germanus stepped down as Western Emperor is mainly because he knew how hard of a job as Caesar/emperor is
Severely sibilant sonics this time, major.
The elephant in the room - the entity which was the most responsible for the continuation of the mission of the Roman empire was the papacy - not only did they continue with the latin language but with a lot of the Roman administrative units like the diocese and also they extended the Roman ambit to a lot of areas never under Roman rule like Scandinavia, Poland, the Baltic states and even Greenland and Iceland!!! And with popes like the aggressive Gregory VII we have the papacy even claiming precedence over Holy Roman emperors like Heinrich Iv - the continuation of Rome was the papacy and the Roman Catholic church without a doubt.
The Roman empire didn't fall when Odoacer took over and deposed Romilus Augustulus
It fell 1000 years later when Mehmet II conquered Constantinople and finally ended the Roman empire
It's worth noting that very, very, very (very) technically; under both Odoacer and the Ostrogoths, at no point did Italy cease to be de jure a part of the Roman Empire-the Praetorian Prefecture of Italy continued to exist (and Theodoric the Great even re-established the Praetorian Prefecture of Gaul when he reconquered Provence from the Visigoths). And of course, the Roman Senate and the Consuls (the de jure heads of the Roman state, even then) continued under both Odoacer and the Ostrogoths.
All that de jure happened in 476/480AD was that instead of there being two Emperors, there was now instead one, just like there had been before 395AD.
Again, very very technically đ
Indeed, much of Italy didn't formally stop being part of the Roman state until the Lombard invasions.
Byzantine generalissimo Narses who succeeded Belisarius in the eastern Roman empires campaigns to reconquer Italy was 95 years of age! An eunuch of Armenian origin. Died aged 100! Was perhaps being a eunuch the key to his longevity?
We need a video of "reconquest of egypt and the soap bucket murder" or did i missed it?
Great video
Very comprehensive list but you forgot some:
- After Justin II and Germanus even Maurice was planning to give his son Theodosius the western part of the empire but then Phocas came etc.
- Eleutherius, exarch of Ravenna, rebelled in 619 under Heraclius and marched to Rome to be proclaimed western Roman emperor by either the pope or the senate (if it was still there) but was killed by his troops halfway.
- This is more of a stretch but there was another Roman general named Paul in Visigothic Hispania around 673 who was proclaimed king of the Visigoths (but his name is clearly not Germanic), however the real king suppressed his rebellion.
- Finally would you consider all the post 476 western Roman generals who rebelled either the byzantines or the Germans claimants of the western empire? Because then the list is longer: there were at least Flavius Gregorius, Gennadius and another Eleutherius, all exarchs in Africa (they were basically all usurpers at a certain point) who were basically independent during the Muslim invasions, since Constantinople couldn't defend them anymore.
You could stretch it even further by considering Caecilius (known also as Aksil or Kusayla), last (?) Mauro Roman Christian king of Altava defeating and resisting the Muslim in 680s (I made a campaign for age of empires 2 about him, queen Dihya of the Aures and the Berber resistance to Islam). After this Carthage fell for good.
(Even in Gaul around 585 there was a certain Eunius Mummolus, Roman general involved in the wars between the Franks so probably do not count as aspirant western emperor but he was still remembered as one of the best generals there)
By the forth century AD, Western Rome had come undone, and it's inner strength was disappearing. A very wise or strong person could hold Western Rome together, but when that person died, there was little political infrastructure to keep it from falling apart. The migrating barbarians could serve in the Western Roman army, but they never really integrated into the Roman people, and didn't even bother learning Latin.
In the early Roman days, Etruscans, Samnites, Greeks in southern Italy, and others had the Roman franchise extended to them, and gradually became Roman themselves. This practice was probably not done in later centuries, which fragmented the people in the Western Empire.
People keep forgetting that the Roman empire was largely built by the Republic and that the emperors only expanded to it a little at best.
Empires usually don't last past more than 250 years at most so the question really is, why did Rome last as long as it did?
The Roman Republic over the centuries had built and appropriated from enemies systems, skills, laws and traditions that made Rome incredibly resilient.
Over time the emperors let fall into ruin or outright demolished these things as it could and often did produce rivals (competent men).
Eventually Rome was unable to produce the kind of men who would put the greater good over themselves, in other words the empire was Rome's enemy.
Nobody has heard of the Emperor Justinian then?
@Maiorianus_Sebastian
In 1168 Eastern Roman Emperor Manuel I. was almost crowned Emperor of the West by Pope Alexander III.
Under 2 hour gang
"Why did nobody try to restore the Western Roman Empire?"
Pope Leo III, who designated the Carolingian Empire (and by extension the Holy Roman Empire) as the Western Roman Empire's spiritual successor: "Am I a joke to you?"
They are a big joke, and a very bad one at that
Contrary to popular belief.. the Roman Empire went out kicking and screaming
Between Maiorianus and Julius Nepos, which one has more chance of restoring the Western Roman Empire?
Majoran
If Germanus had taken up his position in the West then it is possible that Heraclius might not have stepped in to depose Phokus as he was sailing from Carthage. There is a thus good chance the east could have fallen.
On the politology of the Restoratio Imperii I firmly recommend Schwerpunkt
Rome is not dead. It lives on in our hearts. And yes we gonna restore it ma bois.
In many senses the Crusades were an attempt to recover many of the lost Roman-Christian territories. People forget that in those times European kingdoms still felt like a reminiscence of the Roman Empire and they had a big awareness of what was stolen by the islamic folks.
Then ironically they burned Constantinople and snuffed out the last real embers of Rome.
Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire
ââ@@Adsper2000 And those same barbarian christian kingdoms of germania took advantage of the fact that Rome had SEVERAL civil wars (one is bad enough) to bring down the WRE, and bring an extreme quality of life tech decline that lasted for almost a millenium (and ironically only had the renaissance because of scholarly work and culture from roman antiquity and the golden age of middle east).
I think we should be realistic: "Restoring" the Western Roman Empire after 476 in the frontiers of 400 is a pipe dream.
Before Justinian invaded Italy, it would have been perhaps possible to "restore" it within the borders of Theoderic's kingdom and call it "Roman Empire" again,.
At least it would have still been a major power, and who knows what would have been possible in the next centuries. But in the short term, not much.
After Justinian conquered Italy, it was a depopulated wasteland which never again became a major European power. Calling it "Roman Empire" wouldn't have changed anything. It would have been too late.
Ricimer GANG W
The reason why Mizizos was proclaimed emperor even tho he was supposedly against his will is because he was supported by Constans II' murderers that forced him become emperor in Sicily at first place
EuropaUniversalis 4 pc game give a chance to every player of this game... to restore The Roman Empire...
It is incredibly demoralizing to ponder how much of Romes issues were 100% down to internal political dysfunction... imagine if they had a stable system without assasinations civil wars, coups, etc....
I think the last Italian to try and make a Roman Empire was Mussolini. Didn't work so well for him.
The Roman empire just side-stepped from politics to "religion," all roads still lead back to Rome;
*"Inter Caetera" aka the "American Experiment" + Ordo Ab Chao = "Novus Ordo Seclorum."*
2 Esdras 6
9 For Esau (Dan.2:39-44) is the end of the world, *and Ya'aqov (Devarimâ **28:15**-68) is the beginning of it that followeth.* ~ Bereshitâ 15:12-14
I restored the Roman Empire once, but then I changed my mind.
I tried to restore the Roman Empire but OEM parts were no longer available.
Charlemagne, Napoleon, HitlâŠ
0:16 They did its called America and the western world the New World... 1492. Columbus........
*Vsauce theme at background*
1 reason, bankers
the last attempt was in the 1940s by a certain Italian dictator and his Austrian friend.
MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION: Why did no-one try to restore the REPUBLIC? That was the true glory of Rome. Augustus jumped the shark.
There was this little known guy called Charlemagne
halo
Can you make a video replying to Uberboyos theory that the decline of the Roman Empire & rise of Christianity came from demographic changes
Maioranus youâre a great CZcamsr but youâre starting to make a lot of the same or similar videos and I think thatâs why your channel isnât doing as well. Try mixing it up a bit.
is there someone new who tried this
like Domitian, Constantin, Justinian the great, Charlemagne....
Can you comment on that US senator saying that rome fell because they were gay please?
Then another barbarian tribe would demand a third of Italy, and there were not enough Roman troops to purge the peninsula of barbarians by then.
were the romans too self-comfident ? sometimes it feels like they were too merciful towards the invaders when they could have, you know, gone full Gengis Khan gainst them.
If I claim to be something am I really that thing? Anyone can claim to be anything! If I claim to be a woman (I'm a man) is that claim true and to be taken as legitimate????
Surprise me, Maioranus. I'm pretty sure that NATO is the Western Roman Empire by another name and another set of seven hills even...
More EU but yes. A literal confederacy of all Latin derivative and Greek nations. Plus Germanic and Slavic foederati.
I would say the USA is a result of classical Roman influence during the end of the Enlightenment and as a result has institutions that reflect the Roman Republic including the strengths and weaknesses of those governments. But now I am just being esoteric.
@@TheRezro - The Empire as the name indicates (imperator = conqueror, vanquisher) was always a military endeavor, even in the days of the Republic. The Principate was a military dictatorship, like those republics previously under civilian rule that some day fall under a military tyrant and never seem to be able to escape from that destiny ever again, that was what happened to the Roman Republic, which by that day included all Italy (without Sicily and Sardinia-Corsica): republican formalities continued but since Octavian, and even since Caesar and Sulla before him, the dictator became paramount and relied solely on the Army. It was not a monarchy senso stricto, it was not a kingdom, it was not a dynastic rulership, it was a "might makes right" type of rulership.
And it was centered on a hegemonic power, a metropolis that dominated all the provinces (what we would now call "colonies"). This used to be Italy (expanded Rome, Italy was not "province" until Diocletian, it was imperial metropolis with unique status and most citizens were Italians or descendants from Italians).
Similarly now NATO is a military regime (much more powerful than the EU, which is a mere provincial governance of the "Diocesis Europae", so to say, only for civil purposes) and it has a metropolis with uniquely privileged citizenship and currency: the USA. Nobody doubts that it is the USA which rules NATO, that NATO does what the USA commands (sometimes reluctantly but never with recalcitrancy) and that no other polity is even remotely close to that kind of imperial power.
But they all failed to restore the Western Roman Empire, just as the prophecy foretold.
Daniel 2:41-43 And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potterâs clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage,c but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.
What sources tell you that theoderich was actually called emperor? Regarding The fact that his civil Roman Administration (Cassiodor) Never ever called theoderich emperor makes me curious how youre backing this claim @maiorianus
The HRE was totally the continuation of Rome of course
Justinian tried to restore the whole empire
Iâll be the girl that steps up and save the western Roman Empire đ€
(Turns on MacBook and loads up Crusader Kings 3)
I don't like the way you name your Video. Simple because of the obvious Carolingian Empire and the Holy Romen Empire.
You made a really good video about the lesser known attempts of restoring the Western Roman Empire.
I also don't like that you ignore Odoacer and only look at some unimportant boy. At least Odoacer ruled over Italy. The core territory of the Romen Empire.
But the view on Odoacer and also the rebellions against him show why the Romen Empire failed to begin with. The Empire never had true citizens that were not from the few core provinces from Italy...else Odoacer wouldn't be some barbarian, he would be a Roman. Because he already was a Roman general.
Itâs for the best that the empire fell and never came again. A republic of Christian nations is better that a heavy handed dictatorship. Also there was the HRH, not that impressive but it was something.
Political structure of Rome changed several times. That itself is nothing spectacular.