Ave Majorianus, gratias and I have a video suggestion (when you have time of course;). How long after the fall of Ravenna in 476AD did the other Roman cities last before surrender? Did they submit to Odoacer immediately or did any hold out hoping for help from the East? Did Roma resist after Ravenna fell?
@@budwyzer77 My namesake sacked Ctesiphon and still had to retreat, as had Trajan and Avidius Cassius before him. I fail to see how Aurelian would have been more successful, considering the Sassanids were stronger than the Parthians.
@@tywinlannister9391 if aurelian was so good then how did he allow himself to get assassinated cx I mean I get he was a cool guy and all but far from one of the greatest leaders of rome
Stilicho deserves much more praise, I mean the dude practically single-handedly kept Rome safe and the empire alive throughout the reign of Honorius (not even mentioning he might have been one of the greatest generals in roman history). And even when he was going to be executed he refused to betray the empire and start a civil war.
The Empire died with Flavius Stillicho just like the Republic died with Livius Drucus. Two men seen not as Roman, but Roman imitators, who fought and died for honorable causes. Unflinching in what they believed and unwilling to betray their values.
It's interesting to me how some of the postings reflect an emotional relationship with Rome. I've seen vids in which the comments were maudlin boo hoo sessions for "poor little Rome," while the narratives which include Rome getting butt kicked by Goths pleases me all to hell. F empires, especially contemporary ones.
He was one of the God Emperor of Mankind's various forms. He restored the empire before being "murdered" and retreating back to his fortress under the Himalayas.
It's actually quite amazing just how bad things had to get to bring down the empire. Enemy agents probably couldn't have damaged the empire much more than some of its own emperors and usupers!
Yes, I completely agree. It really was a chain of bad events, one after another, with very few bright spots in between, that brought down the empire. And if there were bright spots such as Stilicho, Aetius or Majorian, they were dispodes of. Rome really brought down itself quite effectively.
The fact that Valentinian III had to *re-outlaw* extremely public gladiatorial events held in one of the largest buildings in the whole Empire shows you just how little control he actually exercised.
You mentioned in a previous video how you liked the emperor Julian "the apostate" and how you think that if he reigned longer he would've been known as "Julian the Great". I'm also a fan of Julian (I'm particularly interested in his plans to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem) and would love to see you make a video about him.
Absolutely, we will definitely not only do one video about him, but an entire trilogy, because he deserves special attention. He could have been a second Aurelian, but alas, he chose to invade Persia, which would be his undoing. Yes, we shall cover him in very great detail at some point in the future.
Thank you for this fair assessment of Honorius. For an emperor with such a long reign there are few books about him. He simply turns up as a side-character in books about the late empire. His step-sister, Galla Placidia, had such a remarkable life that she would make a good subject for her own chapter in this series.
Thank you for this good comment :) Yes, Honorius, even though a weak emperor, deserves more historical attention. And yes, Galla Placidia certainly deserves her own episode.
I think there is no mere coincidence that these two weak and incapable emperors, Honorius and Valentinian III lasted so long - they were easy to manipulate and should had they tried to do better, they probably had been quickly eliminated one way or another. Capable leaders did exist, then and later (like Majorian) but there were forces at play that drove the course of history, to say so, much more powerful than the will and actions of a single individual. In essence, there was the conflict between the Senate & big land owners class on one side, who had the economic power, and the Roman army class on the other side. The army was holding the Empire together, it was in fact the reformed army of the Illyrian emperors of the 3rd century that saved the Empire in fact from an early death back then - but these two classes were now largely disconnected (as opposed to before 260 AD, when the senatorial class controlled the Army). They were in fact hating each other (the much expanded Army after Diocletian required increased taxation, and as in all times the rich hated taxes and did the best to avoid them - thus increasing the burden on the poor). The Emperor, who was usually coming from the ranks of the Army, was often both capable and managing to keep the system in check and going - and it was going very well indeed, until Theodosius decided to side with the landowners and the Senate. The last truly capable and powerful emperor in the West was Valentinian I, who in fact was much feared by the rich. After Theodosius, however, they had little to fear, and if they had the chance to have a weak emperor, like Honorius, of course it was in their interest to keep him going as long as possible. This was a short-sighted interest, as in a few generation the whole world came crashing down upon their heads... But they continued to do quite well even after 476 AD, and only in the Gothic Wars they finally had their payback time. In a sense, one could tell that the Army and the Empire (of the East) paid them back for all their evil and short-sightedness🙂
" as in all times the rich hated taxes and did the best to avoid them" The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. - G.K. Chesterton
@@nowthenzen yup the senate were the true enemies of the empire as well as bad actors in the army needing another reform against self declared emperors
@chripianflopezthey subordinated the Ancient Roman Senatorial Aristocracy of Rome in the time of Western Roman Empire they are the Ruling Class who hindered the Western Roman Emperor ie: The Elite who Refused to Fight & Pay Tax while the West is literally Crumbling but it was totally reverse when Eastern Roman Empire Justinian Reconquest of Italy they now must Pay Tax like everyone else, they now must serve in Emperial Army like everyone else , the Senate in the West has lost its State Legislative Level and Reduce only to Municipal Level and they are also Subordinated to Praetorian Prefecture Governor of Italy & Later Exarch of Ravenna while in the past they are directly co-equal to the Emperor in Early days of the Empire , then Directly under The Emperor in the West which still retain some respect to Senate in Rome but it was all lost in the Reconquest of Eastern Roman Empire in Italy .
I'm currently reading Saint Augustine's Confessions and this video sets a very nice cultural and historical background to the time when it was written. Great work, thank you for your efforts! Cheers!
Viewing the Roman empire under the reign of Honorius must have been akin to watching a man attempting to commit suicide several times and failing at the last moment. At a time when the Roman empire needed strength, stability and cooperation, they had two squabbling infantile brothers (Dumb and Dumber) at the center of leadership. The fortunes of the East would in time be restored, the West clearly not. Honorius' reign for me marks one of the absolute nadir of Rome's fortunes, on the level of the Third Century Crisis or the 7th Century Crisis.
I think it is all a mere narrative to justify the swap from roman senate to vatican senate church and to set up the bases for feudalism while roma citizens like the goths take over the army duties, hence the 10% mandatory tax for the church stablished ( the clergy , lopes etc were the pretorian and senatorial families of rome)
Fun fact :The arabs that destroyed the visigoths were invited by a Julian a latin lord descendent from Honorius ,so ironically the emperor who could not defeat the goths was the one who led to the obliteration of the gothic germanics be the arabs.
In Gibbon's book "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" it mentions a Pagan Roman general called Genneridus (who historians believe was probably a barbarian mercenary), who had managed to stabilise the situation in Dalmatia. But Honorius fired him anyway and banned Pagans from the army.
Blaming Christianity is foolish, and I am not even a believer in the abrahamic faiths. The empire declined not due to a change of religion(after all, Christians built Europe back into a power that lasted before the 20th century), but due to poor methods of succession, bad choices of leader. Keep mocking Christianity as Islam puts you below Arabs 😂
CAPITUR URBS QUAE TOTUM CEPIT ORBEM - So wrote St. Augustine upon hearing the shocking news of Rome's sack by Alaric. I think people today can't grasp just how truly shocking this event was at the time.
@@thedrinkinggamemaker9749Rome was the bigoted and arrogant United States of it's day. The word "barbarian" is a stereotype aimed at the greatly feared Goths, who seriously kicked ass in battle. Blue eyes were victimised by Rome as well. In this circumstance, to me the word barbarian only means "not Roman." The found Goth DNA reveals great variety of genetic origins because they attracted other Germanic and Slav tribespeople, including Romans who didn't care for life in Rome. But the Goth leadership was always a Germanic military elite - the Amal lineage for the Ostrogoths, likely descended from Amal "the fortunate," and the Balto clan led the Visigoths, the two families sometimes intermarrying.
@@AntonioPeralesdelHierro Your a biased fool and Rome was nothing like the US. Even at its worst the US was never even close to that level of delusion and vicousness.
@@arte0021 Nero at least provided Romans Aid and rebuilding during the great fire. Honorius was more concerned about his chicken when Rome was being completely destroyed.
The real problem was how Honorius and Arcadius were followed by Valentinian. In some cases, like Caligula, the damage was reversed by more competent followers. These guys however ruled in a critical time and for decades either did nothing or failed. They left very little chance for their successors to reverse the damage done.
Sometimes I try to put myself in Honorius shoes in order to understand his actions. You live in the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire is invaded by germanic people, sometimes they come peacefully other times violently. You can see that these foreigners are causing a mess, they don't follow social norms, they refuse to integrate in society and live by their rules. Sometimes they even refuse to speak latin, your language, in your own country. They are violent people, used to war, these are warriors, they make you feel unsafe in your own city. Since they have come en mass into the empire the standards of living have decreased drastically and you noticed. You are angry, you think that if the Empire is in such dire situation it's because of them, these uncivilized foreigners coming from the northern border. Common people cannot stand this situation anymore, people are fed up. You hear about the old days when the empire was strong, and the roads safe, the aqueducts worked fine and wealth was spread. If only these people disappeared perhaps everything could go back to normal. The romans have decided, it's because of them that they live miserably. Hate spreads like fire, in the beginning there's discrimination headed towards these people, some insults, perhaps some fights, but after a while they start killing all those looking foreinger people. Sometimes those ones are roman the same as you, they have been romanized, their families came into the empire one hundreds years prior, but who cares. They are filthy barbarians deep inside. And you, sitting on your throne feel the same. You are a puppet under a "germanic warlord", half roman in reality but who cares, you can see his appearence, you can hear him speaking his father's language. You want to go back to those times, when the Romans ruled their land and the Roman Emperor ruled over the world, above everyone, not under the boot of some germanic general. You must restore your pride. You made your mind, Stilicho has to go...
I imagine it must've been so overwhelming for any leader anything less than a great and capable leader to attempt restoring the empire. The amount of corruption and erosion left Rome crippled by forces within the empire. Rome's time was expiring like all nations.
Considering the Romans were exterminated almost to a man they were probably right to dislike the Germans. But the Germans had to come or face the Hun. Going defensive would have been the smartest, and zero tribute, only defend Italy. But with a million armed Germans used to war they were probably going down even if Caesar came back to life to lead the armies.
When it comes to the Roman Empire there was never a good time for a weak emperor or child emperor. For me the biggest contribution to every major setback for the whole Imperial period and even the late Republic has come from infighting and self interest at the expense of the state against external enemies. Great video btw.
I think with Honorius he had some type of divine power protecting him. Not only did he rule for thirty years and die of natural causes while being entirely inept, but his body also may be surviving until this day under Saint Peter's basilica, outlasting all the other remains of all Roman Emperors. There is some mystical energy surrounding him, protecting him. Something deeper about this man to survive everything....and I mean everything....even his remains.
well....u are not far from the truth my child......and to think that officially i died of dropsy in the summer of 423 OR SO THEY THINK.............I'M STILL HERE......
@@rickyyacine4818Your response was beta tbh. Most eat poultry fool, point is that the incompetent at least cared about chickens he kept as pets, not food, though he most likely ate chicken anyway. It would be like how some humans are friends of mine, while others, you, I would consider low quality servants at best.
Like father like son, the fall of the western roman empire was in great part fault of the Theodosian Dinasty, with names like Theodosius, Honorius and Valentinian III, nothing could be done, all began with the death of Valentinian I, he was an eficient ruler and with his unexpected death his brother Valens and his son Gratian began with the bad times and his son Gratian put that useless Theodosius in control of the east after the death of Valens in Adrianopolis and the rest is history.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian Your channel is the best of the new channels i found in the last 3 months with Toldinstone, continue with the excellent work, you will reach hundred of thousands of followers if you are constant.
Even more fun fact :The arabs that destroyed the visigoths were invited by a Julian a latin lord descendent from Honorius ,so ironically the emperor who could not defeat the goths was the one who led to the obliteration of the gothic germanics be the arabs.
i think while its true the late roman emperors were in majority less than ideal figures there were also quite limited in their actions by external reasons- e.g. they had to deal with hunns, pay tributes( common thing in roman foreign policy) and protect long borders so the army that was needed to defending roman cities from already present germanic federati was tied to border to deter and face the hunns. even the most able and savvy emperor wouldnt be able to do everything and protect everyone, there was limited amount of gold in roman imperial treasury and finite amount of taxes and other money the roman bureaucracy was able to extract from the empire and which decreased significantly with every passing year due various political and economic reasons so even the bestest and most skilled emperor would have to chose what to do first- what enemy should face roman army or be paid off and what territories need to be left unprotected and undefended and what enemy actions to be left unpunished and unrestricted( for time being). so while i agree that better emperor would have better chance to save the empire such emperor would still need inordinate amount of luck to be able to succeed- like better weather during the last attempt to save empire and reconquer north africa.
Salvete ex futuro, I greet you from the future, I transferred here from 2TheFuture. In fact I share your passion for late Roman Empire history, you’re doing a great job with this fascinating content and you don’t have Tweets from either Hadrian or Claudius to concern yourself with. Haha, Regards Jerry in London,
Salve Amicus! Hello and welcome, and thanks for coming here from 2 The Future, Jixuan and me really appreciate it :) I am happy to see that apparently there are quite a few people who share this common interest for space and for ancient Rome :) Hehe yes, it's so nice not having to refresh Twitter and space blogs 100 times per day 🤣 Claudius and Hadrian won't tweet so much any more, indeed XD All the best, Sebastian
Thanks for watching the video! We hope you enjoyed watching as much as we enjoyed making it. What was the worst mistake of Honorius? Please let us know and comment below! 🎁 The full list of perks we offer to our patrons: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus
To understand Honorius and his son you need to understand latin history, when a general got to op and loved by the people he will often usurp power and often kill the emperor.
I’ve seen suggestions of one or possibly two Roman expeditions to Britain after the officially recognised withdrawal of troops, which temporarily restored some kind of Romanised rule while setting up some kind of post Roman administration or system. It would be interesting to see some examination of this
The Brits of 400-500ad probably saw themselves as roman by that point and carried on building in a roman style and the elites carried on enjoying the country villa life. At least according to the In Search of the Dark Ages zbBC Doc. There's no good source though of who was actually ruling Britain in the 400s, maybe some kind of town council before the cities started to be abandoned and local warlords rebuilt their hill forts. The Eastern empire though carried on trading with Britain because Mediterranean pottery from that period was found in Cornwall and Cadbury Hillfort. They probably came for the tin.
@@lw3646 Nah, the Brits were Celtic, more specifically Brittonic, with those in Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany eventually becoming the modern-day Welsh, Cornish, and Breton peoples and whose languages are directly descended from the Common Brittonic language spoken by Boudica. If you're talking about the British Latin-speaking Romano-British, they got swamped by the Germanic Anglo-Saxons/English and lost their sense of Latin/Romance identity.
2:23 I honestly think that you're a bit too harsh towards Theodosius. He did outlaw paganism but he was a good military commander who stabilised the Empire.
Hello, yes, i am a bit harsh on Theodosius, that is true. He made his inept sons emperors which led to the splitting of the empire, so that makes me a bit angry. Also, i sympathize a lot with the pagans, maybe that's why I am a bit biased, too. And also, destroying the western legions at Frigidus river was a disaster for the western empire.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian He had no choice because everyone force him to abandon the decision for making the half-Vandal Stilicho as his successor. Theodosius I's pagan policies was just a response that the fact over half of the population was Christianity. He would receive a knife on his chest if he revived paganism.
Can't wait for Arcadius video ! He was a little bit better but still terrible like Honorius aswell , atleast he didn't rule that long and he didn't made as much terrible decisions as Honorius
When I played as Honorius and single handly coquered all of the known world in Total war attila I was kinda of surprised knowing that he was prob the WORST of all roman emperors lol.
Honorius was just the wrong man in the wrong place in the wrong office at the wrong time. It came all together at once. But I wouldn't say that he was the worst or most incapable emperor the Roman Empire had ever had. There had been other bad emperors, too, like Nero, Caligula, Commodus , or the soldier emperors who had seized power in the third century AD. Those incapable emperors had just not caused the demise of the Roman Empire, because of that the general conditions of their time had been more convenient for the empire.
I like you're closing comments. It really was Theodosius' fault for appointing him emperor instead of someone more capable. But once you start down that road you go all the way back to Marcus Aurelius for breaking with the proven method of adoption.
Tbh though if any of the Antonine emperors had had a son, that son would have become emperor. Nerva was a childless bachelor. Trajan and Hadrian preferred guys. Antoninus was compelled to marry his surviving daughter to Marcus per Hadrian's succession arrangement. All emperors save Nerva were related by marriage. For all the talk of Rome remaining a republic, the Romans sure seemed to like stable dynasties. Prior to Nero's suicide, the Senate was frantically trying to get him restored, as he was the last direct male descendant of Augustus and they knew the potential consequences of his death - civil war. The "Adoptive Emperors" succession came about due to circumstance, and was abandoned as soon as it was no longer needed.
Thanks :) It's always difficult to find a balance for historical persons, and Honorius is such a case, where emotionally we are quick to judge, but if there was someone to blame, then indeed Theodosius. I agree that this constant urge of emperors to establish their own new familiy dynasty was to the very detriment of the empire. It's sad yes, that Marcus Aurelius himself, made his son Commodus emperor. If there just would have been a Maximus :)
Had Constantius III lived longer (and Theodosius II recognize him), I see a potential driving out of the Burgundians and subdueing of the Vandals. But once he died, Valentinian III would still become Emperor, being Constantius' own son.
You may be correct about Stilicho's political blunders. He was a soldier foremost. And he was such a bad ass. He was like Rommel. He was able to accomplish much with the scant resources of the late empire. He always seemed to arrive just in time to win battles and keep the empire going when he had so much adversity. But did other emperors and generals who had such great success really have access to better resources to make their jobs easier? If what we're talking about is who is the better man apples 2 apples?
Maiorianus, what do u think about the idea that rome actually fell mostly because of its government, alot of the events in the fall of the western Roman Empire seem suspicious to me, as if romes government was infiltrated by people who wanted to destroy it, im highly curious about your thoughts about this idea, i feel almost certain that rome would have survived if the people in the government never killed the three heroes of the age stilicho aetius and majorian
Hello Brandon, that is an interesting idea. Although, it sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory and sounds as if it wants to absolve Rome from its own mistakes. Rome's government form, society and economy had caused the fall, and given way for evil, stupid and inept rulers, who made the worst possible mistakes. It does seem from.the outside.as if there was an evil force at work, but the late Roman empire had done that to itself, as sad as it is.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian That makes sense, but i feel just because it sounds like a conspiracy theory doesn’t mean its not true, and yeah i know they made their own mistakes i just dont think the idea that all it was was a perfect storm that brought the empire down is as plausible, as if it was a miracle it even fell in the first place like everything had to go just right, btw I really love your videos, I always watch them all when they come out im very passionate about this time in history as well and i hope you blow up. You should make a video about the wests government and why it was so flawed and what caused it to be so inefficient and corrupt, i think that in order for one to understand how a system collapsed, one must understand how the system worked in the first place, how did its government work how did the economy and the military work etc etc that in my opinion is the most important information in understanding the empires demise
I think we can trace the problem back to Octavian if he like Diocletian set a time limit to his reign and made the office elective that might have prevented some the succession problems that plague the Empire. Also may I recommend a episode of Real Crusader History on Charlemagne he made the deadly mistake of grating the Pope secular authority of Central Italy dividing Italy in three like was before Rome united it. Had Charlemagne not done this the Papacy would not have turn into the monster that stabbed the HRE in the back and spilt the Church on the eve of the first Crusade.
Do you think an elected Imperator would have made Rome last longer? Im not convinced it would based on how poorly run current western democracies are and the rampant corruption that we see. I think it would have been worse for the Roman's since an election likely meant something of traditional Roman elections. So only people willing to travel to Rome could vote. The rich would be the ones with the biggest advantage in an elected system for Rome.
@@zachbeech4125Beech No but what may have happened is that like China there would have periods of division and unification with some changes in borders not the musical chairs of balkanization we had since the Roman Empire fall.
bear in mind that caligula , nero commodus and caracalla , were hated by senator along with domitian as senators tend to be major historians we will never know the truth about them
A beautiful video this channel would make Jupiter happy Can you cover COMMODVS I feel he is the worst in my opinion. Took a perfectly running state (with some issues admittedly but nothing a half decent ruler couldn’t handle) and drove it straight into a wall ending the Pax Romana and the 5 Good Emperor streak, beginning the long decline of Rome.
I find it a bit difficult to believe the story of a "weak and incapable emperor" which at the same time managed to crush all usurpators and remain emperor for much longer than most other emperors. You might be measuring him with a metric which is just not the one he cared about. Additionally, making a ranking between "good" and "bad" rulers is always delicate given how much we rely on a small number of biased sources
I don't think an Alexander the Great could have saved the empire by this point, he inherited a dire situation, its very easy in hindsight to argue he should have joined thr battles but getting killed or captured would have been very damaging for the empire. He did show some understanding of the problems the empire faced, moving the capital to a safer position, he withdrew forces from Britain acknowledging it was too remote to defend and the troops were badly needed elsewhere. He also tried to reform the army, though too little too late, he banned the cruel gladiatorial games. His requests for aid from the east often went unanswered. The story about the chickens doesn't appear until 150 or so years later so has to be a bit suspect.
The reign of Honorius proves that Caligula and Nero are overhated as neither of them did much damage to the Roman state in the long term while Honorius accelerated the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
24:10 - I love the "apologia" on behalf of Honorius. "Here, but for the Grace of God, go I". Someone always has to be the "Fall Guy" of history. So, to understand all is to forgive all. Perhaps the lack of "evolution" in the Roman Empire had a lot to do with its downfall. I can only think that Rome declined in the shadow of it's great accomplishments - meaning a highly practical and sophisticated system of engineering, architecture and civic culture. Clearly, Rome could not entertain much beyond the boundaries of its maximum glory. Perhaps a "conservatism" of sorts was it's real downfall.
Rumors showing that Honorius summoned Nooroo and became Hawk Moth. Alaric was angry of being barred to enter the Roman civilization. Seeing this as an advantage, he masterminded Alaric for sacking Rome by akumatizing him. The only solution was someone like you Majorian needed to kill Honorius and replace Hadrian as emperor with the help of a Rabbit Miracluous as Bunnix by time travelling. Honorius was the creator of the Sack of Rome. Don't forget he also akumatize a bunch of innocent people like Constantine III, Constans II, Attalius for becoming usurpers. This is a joke tho. Also screw Honorius, his Empress Chicken Roma and his nephew Valentinian III.
Constantine often gets the blame for many of the bad things that Theodosius and his children did. It was Theodosius, not Constantine that made the pagan religious illegal Constantine continued to pray to the pagan gods until shortly before his death.
Eugenius' usurpation went a long way to to finish of the empire. Theodosius had to react. Also, after the disastrous 3rd century, Constantine made an attempt to reestablish cultural unity and 'patriotism' under the banner of Christianity. The revival in the mid 4th century may have been a result of that. But Julian's attempt to repaganize the empire disrupted the empire's reorganization under Christianity and his catastrophic invasion of Persia weakened Roman military might forever. Thirty years later, Eugenius also tried to reestablish pagan supremacy. His defeat at Frigidus left the West militarily crippled and Goths disgruntled.
You should do a video of the church history in Rome to. Many of the God fearing Christians were disgusted at the self righteousness and laxed morals of the rest of the church and seeing the beahviors of the emperors in their anti-pagan policies really shows the self righteousness there. It is also what led many theologians such as Palegius to deny that there was sin nature at all which of course is utter heresy. Even one God fearing Christian priest was murdered by other self righteous Christians, and later, that same city in Gaul, was sacked by the Huns. This story is the martyrdom of Saint Nicasius, then after he was murdered, the Huns sacked Rheims.
Wasn't the issue with soldier recruitment the Roman aristocrats would not let the Latin farm workers be recruited for the army bc they wanted plenty of inexpensive labor? What were once freemen were treated like serfs? and that is mainly why the Western Roman empire was weak militarily? The Aristocrats did not care how the frontiers were protected as long as they were protected and at no cost to them?
I'd argue that Caligula was not one of the worst emperors. He certainly was a je** (in common with any other emperor), but he left an intact empire behind. His main problem was a bad press by surviving senators, the very people Caligula openly despised. The plebs liked him or most likely didn't bother if some senators were killed. Most senators weren't any better either. The decline of the Roman Empire started way back in the republican era. Sulla, Marius, Pompeius and Caesar started the process. Honorius happened to be the last one in charge, but anybody else would have failed as miserably as he did. For each emperor there were a few wanna-be-emperors in line and usually they fought each other instead of fighting external threats.
In my opinion Theodosius is to blame for many of the catastrophies that will happen during the reign of his sons and even for the reign of his sons at all so he might be the emeperor who damaged rome the most. A peaceful solution with Eugenius and Arbogast might have saved the western roman empire for hundreds of years and would have prevented Theodosius to force his anti pagan laws on the empire. While Honorius and Arcadius made some real bad decisions we have to consider that these two boys where raised by courtiers as marionettes and so never learned to rule for themselves.
Possibly a controversial opinion, but I have the feeling that his dad was worse. As you've said in another video, the empire was never supposed to be divided. The East, for centuries by that time, was ridiculously richer than the West. The West was never supposed to be alone. Tap on to that his persecution of pagans, the blind eye of the Christian atrocities that I simply cannot abide by in spite of my Orthodox Christian upbringing, and his decimation of the Western Roman troops in Frigidus, and... basically you have a man with an agenda, and that agenda says that East > West, and the West can go fuck itself. You've done a lot of research in this and I've seen your other videos about some decisions that could have saved the West, at least for a few more decades or even centuries. Allow me to have some doubts about this if you don't mind. I personally just don't see any universe where the West stands alone and survives. Not with a Majorian, not even with an Aurelian. There's simply not enough Latin - speaking military manpower that has the interests of Rome in mind and won't rebel and sack several cities at the first sign of a delayed or insufficient payment. The trade is land-based, so it's slow and susceptible to all kinds of raids, lootings and it just doesn't happen at all during the winter. Brittannia is a financial sink that doesn't produce anything important for the time, such as olive oil, oranges, lemons, wine, pigments... Sure, they have wool, I'll give you that, but nobody survived on the wool trade alone :) Not to mention that you need good control over the English Straits to actually keep your province in some form of check, and the Franks are a few hundred miles away, ready to capture all of your ports. The Foederati's loyalty is questionable at best, as already mentioned. All of the sudden, you've lost Bosphorus, Asia Minor, the Levant, and, crucially, Egypt. Egypt! The trade in Myos Hormos alone could sustain an entire province for years :) To sum up, it most definitely did not help that this man could not do one thing right for 28 years straight. But is one the worst, because he was the most inept, or because he was the most evil? If you think about who might have sown the seeds of destruction, you need to look at his sanctified dad. Honorius was useless, but his dad was evil. He had an agenda. And it worked!
Fun fact :The arabs who killed destroyed the visigoths ,were invited by a Julian a latin lord descendent from Honorius ,so ironically the emperor who could not defeat the goths was the one who led to the obliteration of the gothic germanics be the arabs.
I find that many of your expression are inadequate. You let your personal opinions show too much when you use words like “disastrous” and “terrible” referring to emperors. That is not very historian-like. Just like the fact that you don’t add references for a lot of the things you say. How can I know you’re not narrating the plot of a novel?
If he had been a better emperor and gone after the Barbarians rather than usurpers, he would probably have not lived as long as he did or died a peaceful death
I think Valens deserves some finger-pointing as a terrible emperor leading to the destruction of the Roman Empire due to the disaster at Adrianople and for other sins. Not sure if you've done a video on him, so just saying. Also, in terms of this video, Alaric wanted to be Magister Militum, or have some sort of recognition by Honorius, so he could have been (maybe) pacified. But Honorius, despite his desperate position, refused any accommodation. What's interesting to me is that the Eastern Roman Empire, which was governed better overall, was still almost toppled in the 7th century by the Muslim invaders, but thanks to Greek fire and Constantinople's large walls it was saved.
One big unsolved question remains, though. If one of Honorius' hens was named Roma, what were the names of the others? XD
Ravenna? Constantinopolis?
Galla.
@@septimiusseverus343 that one he killed for dinner
Turkey
Ave Majorianus, gratias and I have a video suggestion (when you have time of course;).
How long after the fall of Ravenna in 476AD did the other Roman cities last before surrender?
Did they submit to Odoacer immediately or did any hold out hoping for help from the East? Did Roma resist after Ravenna fell?
@@Jediben001 No. He screwed it.
The fact that Honorius reigned for nearly 30 years but Aurelian only 5 is so depressing.
Aurelian was old also. He was 60 years old at his death. He would not have reigned much more
@@tywinlannister9391 If you had given Aurelian another three years he would have *conquered* Ctesiphon and incorporated it into the Empire.
@@budwyzer77 perhaps. And his sucessor will lose it
@@budwyzer77 My namesake sacked Ctesiphon and still had to retreat, as had Trajan and Avidius Cassius before him. I fail to see how Aurelian would have been more successful, considering the Sassanids were stronger than the Parthians.
@@tywinlannister9391 if aurelian was so good then how did he allow himself to get assassinated cx I mean I get he was a cool guy and all but far from one of the greatest leaders of rome
Stilicho deserves much more praise, I mean the dude practically single-handedly kept Rome safe and the empire alive throughout the reign of Honorius (not even mentioning he might have been one of the greatest generals in roman history). And even when he was going to be executed he refused to betray the empire and start a civil war.
The Empire died with Flavius Stillicho just like the Republic died with Livius Drucus. Two men seen not as Roman, but Roman imitators, who fought and died for honorable causes. Unflinching in what they believed and unwilling to betray their values.
Yeah, but did you ever think about the fact that he didn't because I said so?
It's interesting to me how some of the postings reflect an emotional relationship with Rome. I've seen vids in which the comments were maudlin boo hoo sessions for "poor little Rome," while the narratives which include Rome getting butt kicked by Goths pleases me all to hell. F empires, especially contemporary ones.
And for me, Stilicho should be the Emperor and should be ruling in Rome instead of Honorius.
@@AntonioPeralesdelHierro massive L take
If Aurelian had ruled for as long as Honorius we'd be ruling the solar system by now.
He'd also have developed a cure for cancer, halted global warming, and scored me a date with Samara Weaving.
@@septimiusseverus343 He really was Emperor Bill Brasky.
Also Constans II survived until 80 or Basil II lived as an immortal
Aurelian was Sol Invictus' champion.
He was one of the God Emperor of Mankind's various forms. He restored the empire before being "murdered" and retreating back to his fortress under the Himalayas.
It's actually quite amazing just how bad things had to get to bring down the empire. Enemy agents probably couldn't have damaged the empire much more than some of its own emperors and usupers!
Rome was truly it's own worst enemy
Yes, I completely agree. It really was a chain of bad events, one after another, with very few bright spots in between, that brought down the empire. And if there were bright spots such as Stilicho, Aetius or Majorian, they were dispodes of. Rome really brought down itself quite effectively.
The more things change the more they stay the same
I remember reading somewhere that the surprise wasn't that Rome fell, but that it took so long.
Quite similar to vote the politicians of todays modern day countries 😂 thats why we are from crisis to crisis, much like the romans
The fact that Valentinian III had to *re-outlaw* extremely public gladiatorial events held in one of the largest buildings in the whole Empire shows you just how little control he actually exercised.
You mentioned in a previous video how you liked the emperor Julian "the apostate" and how you think that if he reigned longer he would've been known as "Julian the Great". I'm also a fan of Julian (I'm particularly interested in his plans to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem) and would love to see you make a video about him.
A hero Emperor, virtuous and brave, dedicated to a doomed cause, undone by his own hubris.
Julian truly lived the Greek Tragedy.
Absolutely, we will definitely not only do one video about him, but an entire trilogy, because he deserves special attention. He could have been a second Aurelian, but alas, he chose to invade Persia, which would be his undoing. Yes, we shall cover him in very great detail at some point in the future.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian *brain aneurysm intensifies
@@budwyzer77 guy really thought he was gonna be a 2nd Alex and conquer Persia, lmao 🤣🤣 it was doomed from the start
@@rishavkumar1250 he was much more capable than you streetshitter could ever be. Plus trajan also once captured Persian capital ctesiphon.
Thank you for this fair assessment of Honorius. For an emperor with such a long reign there are few books about him. He simply turns up as a side-character in books about the late empire. His step-sister, Galla Placidia, had such a remarkable life that she would make a good subject for her own chapter in this series.
Thank you for this good comment :)
Yes, Honorius, even though a weak emperor, deserves more historical attention.
And yes, Galla Placidia certainly deserves her own episode.
I think there is no mere coincidence that these two weak and incapable emperors, Honorius and Valentinian III lasted so long - they were easy to manipulate and should had they tried to do better, they probably had been quickly eliminated one way or another. Capable leaders did exist, then and later (like Majorian) but there were forces at play that drove the course of history, to say so, much more powerful than the will and actions of a single individual. In essence, there was the conflict between the Senate & big land owners class on one side, who had the economic power, and the Roman army class on the other side. The army was holding the Empire together, it was in fact the reformed army of the Illyrian emperors of the 3rd century that saved the Empire in fact from an early death back then - but these two classes were now largely disconnected (as opposed to before 260 AD, when the senatorial class controlled the Army). They were in fact hating each other (the much expanded Army after Diocletian required increased taxation, and as in all times the rich hated taxes and did the best to avoid them - thus increasing the burden on the poor). The Emperor, who was usually coming from the ranks of the Army, was often both capable and managing to keep the system in check and going - and it was going very well indeed, until Theodosius decided to side with the landowners and the Senate. The last truly capable and powerful emperor in the West was Valentinian I, who in fact was much feared by the rich. After Theodosius, however, they had little to fear, and if they had the chance to have a weak emperor, like Honorius, of course it was in their interest to keep him going as long as possible. This was a short-sighted interest, as in a few generation the whole world came crashing down upon their heads... But they continued to do quite well even after 476 AD, and only in the Gothic Wars they finally had their payback time. In a sense, one could tell that the Army and the Empire (of the East) paid them back for all their evil and short-sightedness🙂
" as in all times the rich hated taxes and did the best to avoid them" The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all.
- G.K. Chesterton
@@nowthenzen yup the senate were the true enemies of the empire as well as bad actors in the army needing another reform against self declared emperors
@chripianflopezthey subordinated the Ancient Roman Senatorial Aristocracy of Rome in the time of Western Roman Empire they are the Ruling Class who hindered the Western Roman Emperor ie: The Elite who Refused to Fight & Pay Tax while the West is literally Crumbling but it was totally reverse when Eastern Roman Empire Justinian Reconquest of Italy they now must Pay Tax like everyone else, they now must serve in Emperial Army like everyone else , the Senate in the West has lost its State Legislative Level and Reduce only to Municipal Level and they are also Subordinated to Praetorian Prefecture Governor of Italy & Later Exarch of Ravenna while in the past they are directly co-equal to the Emperor in Early days of the Empire , then Directly under The Emperor in the West which still retain some respect to Senate in Rome but it was all lost in the Reconquest of Eastern Roman Empire in Italy .
I'm currently reading Saint Augustine's Confessions and this video sets a very nice cultural and historical background to the time when it was written. Great work, thank you for your efforts! Cheers!
Yeah, it is an interesting account of the life of an educated North African roman who clearly had a great command of Latin and got to travel widely.
Viewing the Roman empire under the reign of Honorius must have been akin to watching a man attempting to commit suicide several times and failing at the last moment. At a time when the Roman empire needed strength, stability and cooperation, they had two squabbling infantile brothers (Dumb and Dumber) at the center of leadership. The fortunes of the East would in time be restored, the West clearly not. Honorius' reign for me marks one of the absolute nadir of Rome's fortunes, on the level of the Third Century Crisis or the 7th Century Crisis.
Hi Septimius, yes, I couldn't agree more, very well written !
Dumb and Dumber means Arcadius and Honorius the Hawk Moth?
still not as bad as old uncle joe biden
I think it is all a mere narrative to justify the swap from roman senate to vatican senate church and to set up the bases for feudalism while roma citizens like the goths take over the army duties, hence the 10% mandatory tax for the church stablished ( the clergy , lopes etc were the pretorian and senatorial families of rome)
Fun fact :The arabs that destroyed the visigoths were invited by a Julian a latin lord descendent from Honorius ,so ironically the emperor who could not defeat the goths was the one who led to the obliteration of the gothic germanics be the arabs.
In Gibbon's book "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" it mentions a Pagan Roman general called Genneridus (who historians believe was probably a barbarian mercenary), who had managed to stabilise the situation in Dalmatia. But Honorius fired him anyway and banned Pagans from the army.
Blaming Christianity is foolish, and I am not even a believer in the abrahamic faiths. The empire declined not due to a change of religion(after all, Christians built Europe back into a power that lasted before the 20th century), but due to poor methods of succession, bad choices of leader. Keep mocking Christianity as Islam puts you below Arabs 😂
CAPITUR URBS QUAE TOTUM CEPIT ORBEM - So wrote St. Augustine upon hearing the shocking news of Rome's sack by Alaric.
I think people today can't grasp just how truly shocking this event was at the time.
I’m playing as Honorius for the first time in Crusader Kings 3’s The Fallen Eagle and I lowkey just want to give the kid a hug
The fact that Alarik kept lowering his demands and Honorius kept refusing made the sacking of Rome so much worse
Never trust a barbarian
@@thedrinkinggamemaker9749Rome was the bigoted and arrogant United States of it's day. The word "barbarian" is a stereotype aimed at the greatly feared Goths, who seriously kicked ass in battle. Blue eyes were victimised by Rome as well. In this circumstance, to me the word barbarian only means "not Roman." The found Goth DNA reveals great variety of genetic origins because they attracted other Germanic and Slav tribespeople, including Romans who didn't care for life in Rome. But the Goth leadership was always a Germanic military elite - the Amal lineage for the Ostrogoths, likely descended from Amal "the fortunate," and the Balto clan led the Visigoths, the two families sometimes intermarrying.
@@AntonioPeralesdelHierro is this some Barbarian joke I'm too civilised to understand?
@@AntonioPeralesdelHierro Your a biased fool and Rome was nothing like the US. Even at its worst the US was never even close to that level of delusion and vicousness.
The five terrible emperors: Commodus, Honorius, Arcadius, Valentinian III. and Phocas.
At least Commodus, Valentinian III and Phocas received in life what they deserved
What about Caligula, Nero, Elagobalus etc?
@@arte0021 Nero at least provided Romans Aid and rebuilding during the great fire. Honorius was more concerned about his chicken when Rome was being completely destroyed.
The real problem was how Honorius and Arcadius were followed by Valentinian.
In some cases, like Caligula, the damage was reversed by more competent followers.
These guys however ruled in a critical time and for decades either did nothing or failed. They left very little chance for their successors to reverse the damage done.
@@arte0021Everything Nero did, Caligula did worse.
In the case of Caligula and Elegabalus, there’s at least some solace in brief reigns.
Sometimes I try to put myself in Honorius shoes in order to understand his actions.
You live in the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire is invaded by germanic people, sometimes they come peacefully other times violently.
You can see that these foreigners are causing a mess, they don't follow social norms, they refuse to integrate in society and live by their rules. Sometimes they even refuse to speak latin, your language, in your own country. They are violent people, used to war, these are warriors, they make you feel unsafe in your own city. Since they have come en mass into the empire the standards of living have decreased drastically and you noticed.
You are angry, you think that if the Empire is in such dire situation it's because of them, these uncivilized foreigners coming from the northern border.
Common people cannot stand this situation anymore, people are fed up.
You hear about the old days when the empire was strong, and the roads safe, the aqueducts worked fine and wealth was spread.
If only these people disappeared perhaps everything could go back to normal.
The romans have decided, it's because of them that they live miserably.
Hate spreads like fire, in the beginning there's discrimination headed towards these people, some insults, perhaps some fights, but after a while they start killing all those looking foreinger people.
Sometimes those ones are roman the same as you, they have been romanized, their families came into the empire one hundreds years prior, but who cares. They are filthy barbarians deep inside.
And you, sitting on your throne feel the same. You are a puppet under a "germanic warlord", half roman in reality but who cares, you can see his appearence, you can hear him speaking his father's language. You want to go back to those times, when the Romans ruled their land and the Roman Emperor ruled over the world, above everyone, not under the boot of some germanic general. You must restore your pride. You made your mind, Stilicho has to go...
I imagine it must've been so overwhelming for any leader anything less than a great and capable leader to attempt restoring the empire. The amount of corruption and erosion left Rome crippled by forces within the empire. Rome's time was expiring like all nations.
Considering the Romans were exterminated almost to a man they were probably right to dislike the Germans. But the Germans had to come or face the Hun. Going defensive would have been the smartest, and zero tribute, only defend Italy. But with a million armed Germans used to war they were probably going down even if Caesar came back to life to lead the armies.
When it comes to the Roman Empire there was never a good time for a weak emperor or child emperor.
For me the biggest contribution to every major setback for the whole Imperial period and even the late Republic has come from infighting and self interest at the expense of the state against external enemies.
Great video btw.
Plus, like some contemporary nations, very corrupted.
I think with Honorius he had some type of divine power protecting him. Not only did he rule for thirty years and die of natural causes while being entirely inept, but his body also may be surviving until this day under Saint Peter's basilica, outlasting all the other remains of all Roman Emperors.
There is some mystical energy surrounding him, protecting him. Something deeper about this man to survive everything....and I mean everything....even his remains.
>the beginning of the Honoriuspill Journey
well....u are not far from the truth my child......and to think that officially i died of dropsy in the summer of 423 OR SO THEY THINK.............I'M STILL HERE......
"How much can change in 5 years." How much has changed for us in little more than one!
Love your channel and Roman History.. Keep it Up!!
Great again ! Your work should be made mandatory in college
At least Honorius seriously cared about his chickens...
Ik I like chickens 😃🍖😋🤔🐔🐔🐔🐔
@@rickyyacine4818Your response was beta tbh. Most eat poultry fool, point is that the incompetent at least cared about chickens he kept as pets, not food, though he most likely ate chicken anyway. It would be like how some humans are friends of mine, while others, you, I would consider low quality servants at best.
@@SéaFid chill fool I was just joking and Hungry too
Another great video man! Keep going👍
Like father like son, the fall of the western roman empire was in great part fault of the Theodosian Dinasty, with names like Theodosius, Honorius and Valentinian III, nothing could be done, all began with the death of Valentinian I, he was an eficient ruler and with his unexpected death his brother Valens and his son Gratian began with the bad times and his son Gratian put that useless Theodosius in control of the east after the death of Valens in Adrianopolis and the rest is history.
Couldn't agree more ! Yes, the Theodosian dynasty was a complete disaster, from beginning to end.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian Only the Angelid dynasty beats it in incompetence
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian Your channel is the best of the new channels i found in the last 3 months with Toldinstone, continue with the excellent work, you will reach hundred of thousands of followers if you are constant.
Even more fun fact :The arabs that destroyed the visigoths were invited by a Julian a latin lord descendent from Honorius ,so ironically the emperor who could not defeat the goths was the one who led to the obliteration of the gothic germanics be the arabs.
i think while its true the late roman emperors were in majority less than ideal figures there were also quite limited in their actions by external reasons- e.g. they had to deal with hunns, pay tributes( common thing in roman foreign policy) and protect long borders so the army that was needed to defending roman cities from already present germanic federati was tied to border to deter and face the hunns.
even the most able and savvy emperor wouldnt be able to do everything and protect everyone, there was limited amount of gold in roman imperial treasury and finite amount of taxes and other money the roman bureaucracy was able to extract from the empire and which decreased significantly with every passing year due various political and economic reasons so even the bestest and most skilled emperor would have to chose what to do first- what enemy should face roman army or be paid off and what territories need to be left unprotected and undefended and what enemy actions to be left unpunished and unrestricted( for time being).
so while i agree that better emperor would have better chance to save the empire such emperor would still need inordinate amount of luck to be able to succeed- like better weather during the last attempt to save empire and reconquer north africa.
Nagyon jó hozzászólás!
Thank you and Much Love from the Philippines.
Salvete ex futuro, I greet you from the future, I transferred here from 2TheFuture.
In fact I share your passion for late Roman Empire history, you’re doing a great job with this fascinating content and you don’t have Tweets from either Hadrian or Claudius to concern yourself with. Haha, Regards Jerry in London,
Salve Amicus! Hello and welcome, and thanks for coming here from 2 The Future, Jixuan and me really appreciate it :)
I am happy to see that apparently there are quite a few people who share this common interest for space and for ancient Rome :)
Hehe yes, it's so nice not having to refresh Twitter and space blogs 100 times per day 🤣 Claudius and Hadrian won't tweet so much any more, indeed XD
All the best, Sebastian
Excellent! Nice twist at the end.
“Gebt den Kindern das Kommando. Sie berechnen nicht was sie tun“ kinda resonates here
Thanks for watching the video! We hope you enjoyed watching as much as we enjoyed making it.
What was the worst mistake of Honorius? Please let us know and comment below!
🎁 The full list of perks we offer to our patrons: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus
He lived
The narrator of these videos, has a beautiful Austrian accent.
excellent presentation!
where in the name of all things holy and pure did you get that video capture at 4:54???
To understand Honorius and his son you need to understand latin history, when a general got to op and loved by the people he will often usurp power and often kill the emperor.
Thanks for awesome videos.could you please make videos specifically about mad emperors?and what was the reason for that?was genetics involved?
I’ve seen suggestions of one or possibly two Roman expeditions to Britain after the officially recognised withdrawal of troops, which temporarily restored some kind of Romanised rule while setting up some kind of post Roman administration or system. It would be interesting to see some examination of this
The Brits of 400-500ad probably saw themselves as roman by that point and carried on building in a roman style and the elites carried on enjoying the country villa life. At least according to the In Search of the Dark Ages zbBC Doc. There's no good source though of who was actually ruling Britain in the 400s, maybe some kind of town council before the cities started to be abandoned and local warlords rebuilt their hill forts. The Eastern empire though carried on trading with Britain because Mediterranean pottery from that period was found in Cornwall and Cadbury Hillfort. They probably came for the tin.
@@lw3646 Nah, the Brits were Celtic, more specifically Brittonic, with those in Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany eventually becoming the modern-day Welsh, Cornish, and Breton peoples and whose languages are directly descended from the Common Brittonic language spoken by Boudica. If you're talking about the British Latin-speaking Romano-British, they got swamped by the Germanic Anglo-Saxons/English and lost their sense of Latin/Romance identity.
2:23 I honestly think that you're a bit too harsh towards Theodosius. He did outlaw paganism but he was a good military commander who stabilised the Empire.
Hello, yes, i am a bit harsh on Theodosius, that is true. He made his inept sons emperors which led to the splitting of the empire, so that makes me a bit angry. Also, i sympathize a lot with the pagans, maybe that's why I am a bit biased, too. And also, destroying the western legions at Frigidus river was a disaster for the western empire.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian He had no choice because everyone force him to abandon the decision for making the half-Vandal Stilicho as his successor. Theodosius I's pagan policies was just a response that the fact over half of the population was Christianity. He would receive a knife on his chest if he revived paganism.
Where can i find such beautiful drawings of Ravenna such as the one you showed in your video? Just loved It!
Theodosius was the one who started the disintegration of the territory of rome and over-reliant on barbarians. Very great.
Can't wait for Arcadius video ! He was a little bit better but still terrible like Honorius aswell , atleast he didn't rule that long and he didn't made as much terrible decisions as Honorius
When I played as Honorius and single handly coquered all of the known world in Total war attila I was kinda of surprised knowing that he was prob the WORST of all roman emperors lol.
I have Stilicho murder him early on to usurp the crown
@@dattilo1 based
Honorius was just the wrong man in the wrong place in the wrong office at the wrong time. It came all together at once. But I wouldn't say that he was the worst or most incapable emperor the Roman Empire had ever had. There had been other bad emperors, too, like Nero, Caligula, Commodus , or the soldier emperors who had seized power in the third century AD. Those incapable emperors had just not caused the demise of the Roman Empire, because of that the general conditions of their time had been more convenient for the empire.
Another fine exploration. Keep up the great work.
Thanks a lot for the kind words :)
'Honorius Rome has fallen!'
'My chicken Rome?' (starts crying)
'No the the city!'
'Oh okay, that's not so bad then.'
It is easy to judge in retrospect. I am sure at the moment the right and wrong decisions were not obvious.
I like you're closing comments. It really was Theodosius' fault for appointing him emperor instead of someone more capable. But once you start down that road you go all the way back to Marcus Aurelius for breaking with the proven method of adoption.
Tbh though if any of the Antonine emperors had had a son, that son would have become emperor. Nerva was a childless bachelor. Trajan and Hadrian preferred guys. Antoninus was compelled to marry his surviving daughter to Marcus per Hadrian's succession arrangement. All emperors save Nerva were related by marriage. For all the talk of Rome remaining a republic, the Romans sure seemed to like stable dynasties. Prior to Nero's suicide, the Senate was frantically trying to get him restored, as he was the last direct male descendant of Augustus and they knew the potential consequences of his death - civil war. The "Adoptive Emperors" succession came about due to circumstance, and was abandoned as soon as it was no longer needed.
@@septimiusseverus343 but tbh it was always needed simply because someone who is born in the purple is usually always shit.
Thanks :) It's always difficult to find a balance for historical persons, and Honorius is such a case, where emotionally we are quick to judge, but if there was someone to blame, then indeed Theodosius. I agree that this constant urge of emperors to establish their own new familiy dynasty was to the very detriment of the empire.
It's sad yes, that Marcus Aurelius himself, made his son Commodus emperor. If there just would have been a Maximus :)
@@justinallen2408 _Laughs in Constantius II, Constans II, Constantine VII, Basil II, etc._
@@justinallen2408 Lmao ask Basil II and Constans II
Had Constantius III lived longer (and Theodosius II recognize him), I see a potential driving out of the Burgundians and subdueing of the Vandals.
But once he died, Valentinian III would still become Emperor, being Constantius' own son.
You may be correct about Stilicho's political blunders. He was a soldier foremost. And he was such a bad ass. He was like Rommel. He was able to accomplish much with the scant resources of the late empire. He always seemed to arrive just in time to win battles and keep the empire going when he had so much adversity.
But did other emperors and generals who had such great success really have access to better resources to make their jobs easier? If what we're talking about is who is the better man apples 2 apples?
Can you do a video on the decline of Ravenna?
Maiorianus, what do u think about the idea that rome actually fell mostly because of its government, alot of the events in the fall of the western Roman Empire seem suspicious to me, as if romes government was infiltrated by people who wanted to destroy it, im highly curious about your thoughts about this idea, i feel almost certain that rome would have survived if the people in the government never killed the three heroes of the age stilicho aetius and majorian
Hello Brandon, that is an interesting idea. Although, it sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory and sounds as if it wants to absolve Rome from its own mistakes. Rome's government form, society and economy had caused the fall, and given way for evil, stupid and inept rulers, who made the worst possible mistakes. It does seem from.the outside.as if there was an evil force at work, but the late Roman empire had done that to itself, as sad as it is.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian That makes sense, but i feel just because it sounds like a conspiracy theory doesn’t mean its not true, and yeah i know they made their own mistakes i just dont think the idea that all it was was a perfect storm that brought the empire down is as plausible, as if it was a miracle it even fell in the first place like everything had to go just right, btw I really love your videos, I always watch them all when they come out im very passionate about this time in history as well and i hope you blow up. You should make a video about the wests government and why it was so flawed and what caused it to be so inefficient and corrupt, i think that in order for one to understand how a system collapsed, one must understand how the system worked in the first place, how did its government work how did the economy and the military work etc etc that in my opinion is the most important information in understanding the empires demise
I think we can trace the problem back to Octavian if he like Diocletian set a time limit to his reign and made the office elective that might have prevented some the succession problems that plague the Empire. Also may I recommend a episode of Real Crusader History on Charlemagne he made the deadly mistake of grating the Pope secular authority of Central Italy dividing Italy in three like was before Rome united it. Had Charlemagne not done this the Papacy would not have turn into the monster that stabbed the HRE in the back and spilt the Church on the eve of the first Crusade.
Do you think an elected Imperator would have made Rome last longer? Im not convinced it would based on how poorly run current western democracies are and the rampant corruption that we see. I think it would have been worse for the Roman's since an election likely meant something of traditional Roman elections. So only people willing to travel to Rome could vote. The rich would be the ones with the biggest advantage in an elected system for Rome.
@@zachbeech4125Beech No but what may have happened is that like China there would have periods of division and unification with some changes in borders not the musical chairs of balkanization we had since the Roman Empire fall.
@@zachbeech4125 the roman literracy rate wasn't high enough to Support a Real democracy.
bear in mind that caligula , nero commodus and caracalla , were hated by senator along with domitian as senators tend to be major historians we will never know the truth about them
One thing that proves true throughout history is that threats to the rulers power will take priority over threats to his nation.
A beautiful video this channel would make Jupiter happy
Can you cover COMMODVS I feel he is the worst in my opinion. Took a perfectly running state (with some issues admittedly but nothing a half decent ruler couldn’t handle) and drove it straight into a wall ending the Pax Romana and the 5 Good Emperor streak, beginning the long decline of Rome.
I find it a bit difficult to believe the story of a "weak and incapable emperor" which at the same time managed to crush all usurpators and remain emperor for much longer than most other emperors. You might be measuring him with a metric which is just not the one he cared about. Additionally, making a ranking between "good" and "bad" rulers is always delicate given how much we rely on a small number of biased sources
I don't think an Alexander the Great could have saved the empire by this point, he inherited a dire situation, its very easy in hindsight to argue he should have joined thr battles but getting killed or captured would have been very damaging for the empire. He did show some understanding of the problems the empire faced, moving the capital to a safer position, he withdrew forces from Britain acknowledging it was too remote to defend and the troops were badly needed elsewhere. He also tried to reform the army, though too little too late, he banned the cruel gladiatorial games. His requests for aid from the east often went unanswered. The story about the chickens doesn't appear until 150 or so years later so has to be a bit suspect.
The reign of Honorius proves that Caligula and Nero are overhated as neither of them did much damage to the Roman state in the long term while Honorius accelerated the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
He was a kid cx
@@justinallen2408 He was 38 when he died. He was 24 by the time Stilicho was murdered
24:10 - I love the "apologia" on behalf of Honorius. "Here, but for the Grace of God, go I".
Someone always has to be the "Fall Guy" of history. So, to understand all is to forgive all.
Perhaps the lack of "evolution" in the Roman Empire had a lot to do with its downfall. I can only think that Rome declined in the shadow of it's great accomplishments - meaning a highly practical and sophisticated system of engineering, architecture and civic culture.
Clearly, Rome could not entertain much beyond the boundaries of its maximum glory. Perhaps a "conservatism" of sorts was it's real downfall.
Being weak-willed probably kept him alive for so long
Can't be weak willed when you're a kid so putting in blame on him makes no sense.
@@justinallen2408 He was 24 by the time of Stillicho’s death. 24 years old ain’t a kid
@@iDeathMaximuMII and he came to power at just 10 years old.
Honorius is ironically enough the least honourable emperor in Roman history
Rumors showing that Honorius summoned Nooroo and became Hawk Moth. Alaric was angry of being barred to enter the Roman civilization. Seeing this as an advantage, he masterminded Alaric for sacking Rome by akumatizing him. The only solution was someone like you Majorian needed to kill Honorius and replace Hadrian as emperor with the help of a Rabbit Miracluous as Bunnix by time travelling. Honorius was the creator of the Sack of Rome. Don't forget he also akumatize a bunch of innocent people like Constantine III, Constans II, Attalius for becoming usurpers.
This is a joke tho. Also screw Honorius, his Empress Chicken Roma and his nephew Valentinian III.
Constantine often gets the blame for many of the bad things that Theodosius and his children did.
It was Theodosius, not Constantine that made the pagan religious illegal
Constantine continued to pray to the pagan gods until shortly before his death.
Assistant: "Joe, the barbarians are invading!"
Joe: "where's my chicken at?"
Eugenius' usurpation went a long way to to finish of the empire. Theodosius had to react. Also, after the disastrous 3rd century, Constantine made an attempt to reestablish cultural unity and 'patriotism' under the banner of Christianity. The revival in the mid 4th century may have been a result of that. But Julian's attempt to repaganize the empire disrupted the empire's reorganization under Christianity and his catastrophic invasion of Persia weakened Roman military might forever. Thirty years later, Eugenius also tried to reestablish pagan supremacy. His defeat at Frigidus left the West militarily crippled and Goths disgruntled.
Why's Caracalla considered a bad emperor?
He was a bloodthirsty tyrant who also ruined the economy
The only good thing about Honorius is that he wasn't Ricimer or Phocas. And that's about it.
Hehe yes, Ricimer and Phocas are really hard to top.
At least Ricimer was competent.
@@septimiusseverus343 Phocas lost all the Mediterranean sea.
مبدع.
Honorius, more like, Verecundius
You should do a video of the church history in Rome to. Many of the God fearing Christians were disgusted at the self righteousness and laxed morals of the rest of the church and seeing the beahviors of the emperors in their anti-pagan policies really shows the self righteousness there. It is also what led many theologians such as Palegius to deny that there was sin nature at all which of course is utter heresy. Even one God fearing Christian priest was murdered by other self righteous Christians, and later, that same city in Gaul, was sacked by the Huns. This story is the martyrdom of Saint Nicasius, then after he was murdered, the Huns sacked Rheims.
The single best thing Honorius did, to his credit, happened to be on August 15, 423. To bad he done that sooner.
And he's buried on old st Peter's basilica and later his tomb discovered again during the demolition.
Wasn't the issue with soldier recruitment the Roman aristocrats would not let the Latin farm workers be recruited for the army bc they wanted plenty of inexpensive labor? What were once freemen were treated like serfs? and that is mainly why the Western Roman empire was weak militarily? The Aristocrats did not care how the frontiers were protected as long as they were protected and at no cost to them?
I always have Stilicho murder him a few turns in my WRE campaign on Attila tw. Useless bastard.
I'd argue that Caligula was not one of the worst emperors. He certainly was a je** (in common with any other emperor), but he left an intact empire behind. His main problem was a bad press by surviving senators, the very people Caligula openly despised. The plebs liked him or most likely didn't bother if some senators were killed. Most senators weren't any better either. The decline of the Roman Empire started way back in the republican era. Sulla, Marius, Pompeius and Caesar started the process.
Honorius happened to be the last one in charge, but anybody else would have failed as miserably as he did. For each emperor there were a few wanna-be-emperors in line and usually they fought each other instead of fighting external threats.
A 1500 year long "decline." Hell of a way to go.
@@septimiusseverus343 Honorius lost the half, Phocas lost the Mediterranean and Dumbest/ Petronius Maximus 2.0 Alexios IV simply lost the remains.
Is this the same guy on WanaxTv?
In my opinion Theodosius is to blame for many of the catastrophies that will happen during the reign of his sons and even for the reign of his sons at all so he might be the emeperor who damaged rome the most. A peaceful solution with Eugenius and Arbogast might have saved the western roman empire for hundreds of years and would have prevented Theodosius to force his anti pagan laws on the empire. While Honorius and Arcadius made some real bad decisions we have to consider that these two boys where raised by courtiers as marionettes and so never learned to rule for themselves.
Nel V sec. d.C., escludendo Maggioriano, non c'è stato un imperatore degno di tal nome.
el padre gran emperador y el un desastre.
Keep the bashing coming man we love it
The late roman empire is like watching a slow moving car crash
Possibly a controversial opinion, but I have the feeling that his dad was worse. As you've said in another video, the empire was never supposed to be divided. The East, for centuries by that time, was ridiculously richer than the West. The West was never supposed to be alone. Tap on to that his persecution of pagans, the blind eye of the Christian atrocities that I simply cannot abide by in spite of my Orthodox Christian upbringing, and his decimation of the Western Roman troops in Frigidus, and... basically you have a man with an agenda, and that agenda says that East > West, and the West can go fuck itself. You've done a lot of research in this and I've seen your other videos about some decisions that could have saved the West, at least for a few more decades or even centuries. Allow me to have some doubts about this if you don't mind.
I personally just don't see any universe where the West stands alone and survives. Not with a Majorian, not even with an Aurelian. There's simply not enough Latin - speaking military manpower that has the interests of Rome in mind and won't rebel and sack several cities at the first sign of a delayed or insufficient payment. The trade is land-based, so it's slow and susceptible to all kinds of raids, lootings and it just doesn't happen at all during the winter. Brittannia is a financial sink that doesn't produce anything important for the time, such as olive oil, oranges, lemons, wine, pigments... Sure, they have wool, I'll give you that, but nobody survived on the wool trade alone :) Not to mention that you need good control over the English Straits to actually keep your province in some form of check, and the Franks are a few hundred miles away, ready to capture all of your ports. The Foederati's loyalty is questionable at best, as already mentioned. All of the sudden, you've lost Bosphorus, Asia Minor, the Levant, and, crucially, Egypt. Egypt! The trade in Myos Hormos alone could sustain an entire province for years :)
To sum up, it most definitely did not help that this man could not do one thing right for 28 years straight. But is one the worst, because he was the most inept, or because he was the most evil? If you think about who might have sown the seeds of destruction, you need to look at his sanctified dad. Honorius was useless, but his dad was evil. He had an agenda. And it worked!
Fun fact :The arabs who killed destroyed the visigoths ,were invited by a Julian a latin lord descendent from Honorius ,so ironically the emperor who could not defeat the goths was the one who led to the obliteration of the gothic germanics be the arabs.
"the splitting of the empire"...Divide et Impera.
Still not as terrible as Phocas the usurper that deposed Maurice
👍👍👍
I find that many of your expression are inadequate. You let your personal opinions show too much when you use words like “disastrous” and “terrible” referring to emperors. That is not very historian-like. Just like the fact that you don’t add references for a lot of the things you say. How can I know you’re not narrating the plot of a novel?
...pity on Honorius ..
If he had been a better emperor and gone after the Barbarians rather than usurpers, he would probably have not lived as long as he did or died a peaceful death
Top worst emperors . Carracholla , Commodus , Honorius , Valentinian III
I think Valens deserves some finger-pointing as a terrible emperor leading to the destruction of the Roman Empire due to the disaster at Adrianople and for other sins. Not sure if you've done a video on him, so just saying. Also, in terms of this video, Alaric wanted to be Magister Militum, or have some sort of recognition by Honorius, so he could have been (maybe) pacified. But Honorius, despite his desperate position, refused any accommodation. What's interesting to me is that the Eastern Roman Empire, which was governed better overall, was still almost toppled in the 7th century by the Muslim invaders, but thanks to Greek fire and Constantinople's large walls it was saved.
Honorius had a Mark Zuckerberg haircut
What ever became of the chicken named “Roma”?
They say, it's still safe and well.
He became Honorius' bedwarmer, and died of natural causes, mourned by all as opposed to his husband.
@@septimiusseverus343 And Roma the Chicken and Honorius had a secret child
i understand constantine III
ROME COULD BE SAVED IF STILICHO TEAMED UP WITH CONSTANTINE III OR REPLACE BOTH
IVE HEARD YOUR VOICE IN SKYRIM
Playing attle making him the greatest emperora since augustus
The study of late Roman history makes me black-pilled again...
Please improve quality of sound of the narrator, it sounds quite muffled! and at times unintelligible.
What if Rome invented the telegraph?
Funny that the roman decay ressembles the seleucid's to some degree...