the pope didn't 'elect' the emperor, he just crowned him after the election. the emperor was elected by the prince electors of the HRE. this procedure was formalised by a golden bull in 1356
there was allways a german kingdom, the 7 prince electors, elect at first the german king and the Holy roman emperor. with other words the Holy Roman Emporer hold also the Title German King. The 7 prince elletors are the King of Bohemia(Arch-Cupbearer), The Count Palatine of the Rhine(Arch-Steward) ,the Duke of Saxony(Arch-Marshal), the Margrave of Brandenburg(Arch-Chamberlain) and than 3 Archbishops. The Archbishop of Mainz became the title Archchancellor of Germany, the Archbishop of Cologne became Archchancellor of Italy and the last is the Archbishop of Trier became Archchancellor of Burgundy.
@@marcovtjevNo it didn't. The name was still officially east frankish kingdom. The other comments refer to the "german kingdom"/"regnum teutonicum" but this name wasn't used until the 11th century. That beside, there is a difference between the terms "german kingdom" and "germany"
@@Smurez I think it was called Kingdom of the Germans translated to English. Besides that there always was a Kingdom of Germans/Germany inside the Holy Roman Empire, you can easily google this.
You are getting confused by Prussia. It's a bit confusing couse name was given to different entities. Prussia as a region is located north-eastern Germany, polish coast and stretches up till Kaliningrad. It was inhabited by Prussians - group of Baltic people (you can think of brotherly nation to Latvians and Lithuanians). They were killed off/assimilated. The name stayed and got adopted by Teutonic Order when they secularized. During the years those lands got inharited/bought by royality from Branderburg. Kingdom of Prussia was a combination of Brandenburg and Prussia with Brandenburg (Berlin) being the core of the country and rest being it's provinces. Had they used Kingdom of Brandenburg name it would be more accurate and less confusing.
the Hohenzollerns couldn't call themselves 'king of...' as this title was the prerogative of the emperor to grant for everything inside the HRE. their province of Prussia was outside the HRE and the margraves of Brandenburg (they were one of the seven prince electors too) then started to call themselves _king _*_in_*_ prussia_ by 1701. after wrestling Silesia from the Habsburgs (the emperors) Frederik the Great then felt entitled and bold enough to call himself _king of Prussia_ from 1772 onwards.
@@embreis2257 Just to add, I think essential for the adoption of "King Of Prussia" was that after the second partition of poland in 1772 both West and East Prussia were held by the Hohenzollern in unison. Frederick was free from constraints from the Emperor and the Polish King regarding the title.
Prussia was historicaly just Kaliningrad and a bit of Polish lands South of these, there were only 1 important portand it was mainly a Polish vassal state, that was later conquered by brandenburg that allowed them to claim a King title outside of HRE. For me it was always horific that Germans claimed legacy of nation that they genocided and integrated, they were happy from that reason and embraced it fully.
North-Eastern Germany / North-Western Poland was Pomerania, another Slavic tribe, conquered by Polish and Germans during Medieval times. It became its own Duchy. The region is still called Pomerania to this day - just sepearated between Germany and Poland - and was only Prussian after the "Modern" Prussia took over that land. But before that, it was never Prussia, not even "Old" Prussian.
@@ruas4721 Within HRE, and even after with our move into A-H Empire, the western Bohemian-German borders go without virtualy any change for 700-800 years or so, until certain Austrian painter mucks it up.
Yes the Kingdom of Germany did exist for a period prior to the founding of the HRE. I suppose it's somewhat interchangeable with "East Francia" but it's not exactly the same East Francia we think of that was created after Charlemagne's Empire split. Much like the Imperial Kingdom of Italy, they're not the same as their modern day unified counterparts.
Yeah, the thing is that the Frankish Empire is the first German empire, I'm Frankish btw., it is just that the romano-celtic people in what is now called France, happen to be named after us.
there was allways a german King, the Holy Roman Emporer hold also this Title. the 7 Prince Electors(Kurfürten) want make money so its better to elect more as one Title.
“Famous” countries did not exist (Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Germany…) but some we consider “new Europe” existed before-Serbia, Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania…
7:45 the guy who stopped them was Belgian (if you were to put a nation on it), Charles Martel In reality he was Frankish, which was a Germanic people who migrated towards the low countries and eventually established their first actual state in what is basically modern day Belgium. Most influential Frankish Empire folk were born in Belgium, like Clovis, Charles Martel, Chalemagne and more
1960: "60 years plus of not much border change." [The Balkans feels forgotten and invisible...] But you're right. For being Europe, that was a long calm period.
The name Balkans comes from a mountain which runs mostly in Bulgaria. let's call it Former Yugoslavia shit, because Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Turkey which are also on the Balkans, had nothing to do with this.
The Mongols were quick and efficient when expanding west. Nobody had time to sit down and take notes, just grab your cat and run away. And if you survived it nobody you told about them believed you until it was their time to grab the cat and run.
@@zoltan6451 yes because the mongol were not ready to face against armor knight and even then they had some victory is not until they're leader died in Mongolia that they had to return to Mongolia to pick an new khan
@@muhammadhabibieamiro3639 yes by the Grace of god our people survived , people Who resisted the Mongol empire didnt end well , baghdad for example ...
@@zoltan6451 the destruction of Baghdad was truly a sad and horrific event not just in islamic history but many history Baghdad and the majority of the islamic world went through the islamic golden Age while Europe was is the dark age but like most in unfortunately end but islam did have one victory over the mongols and that is the mongols them self become muslim
This is a video I would like to come back to so I can take my time and watch more carefully as the map changes year on year, frame by frame. It was truly fascinating. Didn't know this video existed. You know much more about this subject than I do. Very impressed. I have concentrated mostly on UK history so far. This will help me put all of it in the larger frame. So thanks Connor. Take care - Love from the UK
The EU was the answer to all that fighting, the continent tore itself apart for thousands of years, various countries tried to dominated europe, but in the end our only solution to survive is to willingly band together, as it is the only power multiplier in Europe. And for all those who say that the EU is an empire ; the EU isnt an empire, it transcends empires.
An utter misconception. Its the lessons eventually learned about mutual self destruction after WW2 that protected Europe from further military infighting, and it was NATO that protected Europe from outsiders. That's the nuclear umbrella of France, the UK and the USA, only one of which country is inside the EU. Furthermore, Europe was rescued during WW2 also by outsiders, not one country currently inside the EU came to a forlorn Europe's rescue. The very idea that the EU could protect anything other than a trade barrier is laughable. Where is this great EU army buddy.........?
Germany in the eu kicked the ass of many powers. Even the us that came very late to the party suffered the double of casualities when confronting the germans. And the us was not alone there. Imagine if it tried alone? What a spectacular ko we would see. And germany is only one country of the eu. In fact the army in the eu is much greater than the us by many times. The advantage of the us is in the weapons. And the us managed to be the superpower that it was because it had no competitors at the time besides the soviet. I would like to see us getting so strong if the european were trying against it. Even torn because of war, the old grandpa knows much more about war than any snot nosed new kid on the block.
At the point where you said "60 years of stability" the area that was then called Yugoslavia still had to go through some sh**. And is still going through stuff tbh. It's interesting how many people forget that region and its pretty recent conflicts.
The USSR also split up at the same time as Yugoslavia, I found it kind of mind blowing he didn't mention that? I mean, I get it that a lot of people forget about the Balkans, but knowing about the US's obsession with Russia, I'd think he would at least mention that. 60 years of peace? Wth
The roman empire did not split because of the huns or the germanic people, at that point the empire still didnt know what was about to happen. A split of the roman empire was nothing new, the only thing special is that it was the last one to happen. If they could have held off the germanic tribes, the empire would have certainly reunited and resplit many time over in the coming times. What brought about the downfall was the series of incompetent rulers in the west, and the east having to deal with its own attackers simultaneously. If the west had more stable and competent rulers, it would have managed to survive just like the east. Also, the division of the empire was purely administrative, de facto it continued to be one empire, with a contiguous economic sphere and pool of people. The eastern empire afterwards never gave up their claims on the entire roman empire, and in fact some of the early germanic states were nominally vassals of the eastern roman empire like the ostrogoths, and later Justinian also tried to begin the reconquest of the west as seen in the 500s and 600s. Potentially, if there were no arabs, the east might have managed to rebuild the entire empire over the centuries. But the arabs did in fact come, in a crucial decade of weakness after a large roman persian war, and dealt the roman and persian empires their actual death blow. This is the true end of antiquity and here the middle ages finally took hold of the byzantine rump state. All the while in the caliphate the new islamic golden age began, largely grounded on previous roman and persian structures.
@@giuliogrifi7739 it didnt fall if you think about it, because that word usually implies a quick succession of things that led to a rapid disintegration, and most empires of history meet that criteria, but rome was different. The roman empire was very different from other empires in many things, including this one. I would argue this is because, especially during the crisis of the 3rd century, it actually transformed into a mega-two-nation state, similar to china. The roman empire by that point wasnt just elites ruling over various peoples, but the people actually identified with the roman empire, everywhere.
the headline in the thumbnail is easily explained: Europe was a place always 'densely' populated compared to the resources available and therefore highly competitive. competition tries to make other competitors go away, especially over rare resources. humans are a greedy bunch. only when weapons of war reached an industrial scale and tens of millions lost their lives did they start to find alternative dispute management methods.
You´re right about the reason behind the split between West and East Roman Empire. It was a administrative solution, decided by what they thought would be the best way to deal with all the chaos at the borders. Inspired by the Roman Republic old Institution of always having two Consuls governing Rome at the same time, they decided to create the "new" Institution of having two Emperors at the same time governing the two halves of the Empire. Theorethically, the Eastern Emperor was the junior one of the two and if needed should always follow and support the Western Emperor, in practice that rarely worked that way.
That is actually a bit imprecise, people always think of the last 150 to 200 years of the holy roman empire. The Holy Roman Empire was an actor of significance to european politics before that.
The HRE was pretty centralized at first (well, as centralized as a feudal state could be), but over the next thousand years, local nobles got more and more power, and the Empire became more and more decentralized. It was a long and slow process, and it's especially noteworthy during the last few hundred years, as other states only became more centralized in comparison (absolute monarchy and all that). Then things like the rise of Prussia made the whole concept basically irrelevant, and Napoleon's conquests were the final nail in the Empire's coffin.
@@Mercure250 Yep! But it is a common misconception. In fact, the Swedish invasion of 1630 and the subsequent direct intervention of France thwarted the attempt to create a more centralized institution of the empire. And it was precisely because of this military intervention in the already existing civil war that it failed. We all know the consequences, the chain of events that this set in motion, all the way to the Nazis. In 1648, this was put into effect, with the total weakening of the emperor, reduced to his own domestic power.
As a European and a Serb, I believe that it was similar in other parts of the world, but unfortunately there are no records. Maybe not to that extent and that amount of aggression, but there was certainly a lot going on. A good part of the history of Serbia itself has been lost. From 630 (when it was created as a vassal of Byzantium, which itself was sought after when Serbs and Croats settled on its devastated territory) until about 1200 and the Nemanjić dynasty, there are not many details and preserved things and documents, and that is about 40% of the time that is this people in the Balkans. Even the names of many rulers and their dynasties are not known, nor when they ruled.
4:35 You are right that is Hungary and Northern Serbia but that part is actually pretty flat since a sea was once there called the Pannonian Sea, you were probably looking for like Carpathian mounts which are in Romania
Your final part about the Roman empire fall, sorry but no, you see all this under a weird non historical lense. Back then there was just not that much structure socially, there was no borders like we conceive them today. There was simply not enough population for that to hold thousands of killometers. Most of the "invasions" are a missnomer, most were just refugees from a chain of tribal displacement. Rome was already weakened by something that made them a powerful entity at first, logistics. Rome became too big for the technologies of its time, it couldn't communicate and circulate from one end to the next efficiently enough and that made it a giant with clay feets. Laws and politic couldn't be unified, taxes couldn't be efficiently gathered. The ethnic and politic center of Rome was not interested in far away wars making the other regions isolated and with different needs and aspirations. The issue was that the wealth of Rome was based on agressive expansion, the s**** trade and collonialism. Once it stoped being able to expand it contracted due to its growing inneficiency. This is what happened to every big empire at some point. Communication and transport was just not efficient enough.
2:38 Congrats for your assumption, Caesar Didn’t want to erase Marseille (greek colony) to actually help Rome to keep clean mediterran sea and police it
3:19 The correct pronunciation of "Teutoburg" is "Toyto-boorg". The German diphthongs "äu" and "eu" sound like the English "oy", and the German "u" sounds like the English "oo". 🙂
This "Germany" that you see is because right before the HRE, the elected king of East Francia was also referred as "king of Germany", the idea was that he wasn't only a Frankish king but ruled over other notable Germanic people such as the Saxons or Bavarians. But in any case both terminology encompassed more or less the same idea. In the same way, we see "West Francia", and later "France", but the French kings were still crowned and referred as "King of the Franks" as late as the XIIIth century and even much later. The distinction started when Philip Augustus won over the English and tried to asses that he was the undisputed ruler of the land France rather than the ruler of the people Franks to counter the english claims in the kingdom.
11:20 1336 Lithuania begins the big push, 1365 we have access to both baltic and black sea, 1795 ends our (first) great empire. 1918 we independent again and make republic, 1940 ends or first republic. 1990 we independent *again* and make new republic , ...... (black hole/iron stars era ends) our second empire ends.
4:40 it really shows the opposite, it had to fight in too many internal fights, it also doesn't show the pillaging they were suffering by the neighbouring tribes, of course no one wants to conquer that territory yet cause they wouldn't be able to hold it for very long, but at this stage it was about to break into pieces xD
When there was East, Middle, and West Francia, it’s because when Charlemagne died his empire was split in three (between his grandsons if I remember correctly). The middle part didn’t last very long, the western part became France, and the eastern part became Germany.
@@erosgritti5171 Gaul (or the Gauls) as a territory of a recognized people, existed from -450BC to -25BC with the arrival and settlement of Celtic peoples from Central Europe. Before that, the territory was populated by nomadic indigenous tribes (megalith peoples). I live in one of these ancient Greek colonies in the south of France and I use metal detectors. Coins are important witnesses to the history of peoples and the soil doesn't lie. There is no Gallic coin older than the 4th century BC.
@@crowblank1 Those nomadics were long gone when the Celts arrived. Agriculture was introduced in France around the 6th millennium BC, and the Megalith builders, farmers not nomadics, came after that.
@@mathias9542 The Greeks established in the south of the country had been minting their coins since their arrival in the 6th BC and the first Gallic coins date from the 4th BC. It's hard to believe that, among the 60 Gallic tribes, it was necessary to wait 2 centuries before adopting a system of currencies.
During the Holy Roman Empire there were hardly any external border shifts, but the respective kings, princes, counts, etc. were able to expand their territories through internal skirmishes or poliical marriages. Added to this were, of course, the attacks of the Vikings, etc.
I would like to point out that while its true that the HRE was extremely decentralized for most of its existence, this was true for every realm back then. The technological limitations back then meant having centralised states was essentially impossible. Most kings had little power if the nobility wanted to band together.
Hence why the austrian painters turn was the 3rd. Holy roman empire - 1. Kaiser wilhelm - 2. My main man 3. So next we will have 4. Just like our world cup wins in soccer/fussball.
At the beginning, the Holy Roman Empire was not a patchwork, as it later became. The large tribal alliances formed the duchies of Bavaria, Thuringia, Swabia, Saxony, Franconia, Upper Lorraine and Lower Lorraine. And then there were a few imperial cities that were only subordinate to the German king or, after coronation by the Pope, to the emperor. The chaos came later.
You should react to the deluge second northern war every day by CherepashkaShusha. He does mapping really well and actually you should react to his other mapping videos too
Eventually Rome became so large that the government had difficulty ruling and protecting its vast territory. Many tribes were moving into Roman lands and could not be stopped due to weakening Roman leadership and political instability. In 286 CE, Emperor Diocletian decided to divide Rome into two sections to try and stabilize the empire. For a hundred years Rome experienced even more divisions until the empire was finally divided in 395 CE and became the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire.
One of the reasons why Iberia was so hard to conquer and, só, connect with Rome is that Iberians were experts on guerrilla warfare, in particular Lusitanians... who were only defeated when Rome managed to assassinate their leader, Viriato. The famous phrase "Rome does not pay traitors" comes from this, from when Viriato's assassin, one of his closest friends came to collect his money and Rome refused. And this guerrilla warfare was still usefull against Napoleon. Alongside Wellington, the constant guerrilla attacks on the French, by the Portuguese on the French suplly chain, was crucial to Napoleon's defeat in Portugal. Of course, it has to do with the Portuguese landscape and the fact that it was Impossible to beat Rome's legions and French army in open field (and direct combat).
7:20 what do you mean watch out Spain? Spain didn't for about another 1000 years, Hispania and Spain are 2 different things, Hispania is Iberia = Modern day Portugal + Spain, Spain was named after Hispania, but it is not Hispania, Hispania is the Roman name for the Peninsula
Hispania has been a political entity since its occupation by the Romans in the 2nd century BC. Later it was independent with the Visigoth kingdom of Hispania. After the Muslim invasion of 711, what the northern Christian kingdoms called the "Restoration" and modern historians since the 19th century the "Reconquista" began, which is nothing other than recovering the territory occupied by the Visigoth kingdom of Hispania and reestablishing Christianity. King Alfonso III of Asturias initiated the idea as early as 906 as "Adefonsus Hispaniae rex". King Alfonso VII in 1135 was crowned "Imperator totius Hispaniae". Finally, with the reconquest of Granada (1492) and the final union of all the Christian kingdoms except Portugal, it is considered that the kingdom of Spain was finally born. King Charles I, the successor of the Catholic Monarchs, will be the first to bear that title over an unified Spain, later perfected by his son Philip II as king of all Hispania (1580) (Spain+Portugal). Hispania = Spain, It is simply the translation.
There was not a unified germany, but there was a medieval kingdom of Germany (regnum Teutonicum) which also was alongside the kingdom of the Italy (regnum Italicum) and the kingdom of Bohemia one of the constitutent parts of the HRE. When Italy largely left the HRE however the institutions of the kingdom of the Germans was merged with the imperial institutions so lost all meaning. In the High Middle Ages you had a German crown, a Roman crown and the imperial crown separately and at times wielded by different people. Once it got more codefied usually a contender started as King of the Germans, then went to Italy to be crowned King of the Romans and meet the Pope to receive the imperial crown. Lateron the German crown denoted the successor to an emperor but had no other meaning anymore. Old Prussia and later Prussia had little in common. In essence the dukes of Brandenburg wanted to gain a royal title so the used the duchy of Prussia outside of HRE to elevate their position to that of kings, mainly a rivalry with Saxony who were elected kings of Poland multiple times. As the imperial traditions only allowed Bohemia to be a kingdom within the HRE by that time they needed to call themselves "Kings in Prussia" at first. All in all it is a pretty artificial construct by the dukes of Brandenburg to create a modern state by the end of the 17th century. The economic and cultural center was always Berlin and Brandenburg, Prussia was mainly farmland and hence however a good source of their conservative officer corps.
i think u are correct about the roman empire split, but add the fact that the East payed to have their enemies go West and not attack the east aswell. The East gained alot with the split
Great video. After the 50's they are very few wars on european continent the biggest the civil wars of Yugoslavia. But we could also cunt USSR military intervention (versus civil) on satelit state. And of cours Russian wars on their border (Moldavia, Georgia and Ukraine) or inside (chenchya). But that not going as smoltie as it seame. After the WW2 they was 40 to 60 milion who was move from one country to an other for having a more omogen population.
@@bilbohob7179 The Spanish king sent a sizeable occupation army to the Low Countries, led by Spanish noblemen. They tortured and burned people alive because of their different religious views and / or political rivalry and generally unleashed a reign of terror. Pretty much like a catholic version of IS.
@@HeikoEbeling Occupation army of spaniards or of the HRE?? Occupation is debatable because Charles had born in Low Countires and he was legit Lord of Netherlands in addition to archduke of Austria, king of Spain, Duke of burgundy.... and of course emperor of HRE. If you go against your legit lord then there are a civil war and most of the troops of Charles were catholics of the low countries. Reign of terror posible but for sure protestans did the same of worst things.... They liked burn alive people... protestant version of IS??
This is basically what I know about Thrace: One of the major types of gladiator was named the Thracian. Other than that, I know that the Thrace region is split between Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey today, and they make cool bagpipes. Oh, and Spartacus was probably from there.
As an addition to that, they were noted gold smiths in the bronze age (due to several large gold mines in the region) and were noted for sending more auxiliary troops in place of higher taxes more often thean the majority of roman administrative regions (and more mercenaries consistently hired by the romans from them before they were conquered).That's also pretty much all I know about them
@ruas4721 ohh yea, they had those wierd inward curving "katanaesque" swords from there, the ones that can go over shields and into shoulders easily, I forgot about those. (Note that katanaesque was the description I remember calling them when I was a kid but feel like it still is a good visual descriptor)
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. It was a confederation of lower ranking states (kingdoms, principalities, etc.) that were unified under one "emperor", because the Pope wanted to diminish the real Roman emperor in Constantinople following the rivalry between the two "holy" sees. Volga Bulgaria was not shown. It took the first Mongol blow after inflicting the first defeat over the Mongols during their European conquest - the Battle of Samara Bend in 1226.
hi i am new to your channal and i think you are becoming my favorite history reactor also i have suggestion can you please react to kings and genrals video on how rome conquerd greece its 2 hours long but i think you should be able to split the video and react to it part by part
Lol exists County of Barcelona the name is for the City equal exist many many other cities equal or more oldest with Barcelona exemples before actual Spain for exemple Kingdom.of Aragón or Valencia ; Castille etc etc this names exists before actual Spain you say a nonsense
I've said it as a replay to a comment and I'll say it here as well. The name "Balkans" comes from a mountain which is located mostly in Bulgaria. What happened in the 90's is some former Yugoslavia s..t and has nothing to do with Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Turkey which are also part of the Balkans. Europe is infamous for starting wars out of nothing, lets not start another one here. Or as an American friend of mine once said: "The easiest way to get shot, is to draw Balkan borders by memory"
I think this is just a simplification, they would run out of colours and it would get confusing if they showed every member of the HRE, its easier to just show the HRE
@@LalaDepala_00 there is PLENTY of documented history before 400BC just not much CONFIRMED history so It's very personalized towards which ever kingdom/tribe/state/"whatever" was forward enough to "document"
Hahah I always feel the stress from americans talkin about war here in Europe. Its like they are relieved af to see us not fighting each other :D Its kinda cute
Just impressive to see the longevity and stability of roman empire. Even if you know it in numbers to see it that way, you can feel how great it was. And what gift to it's people in peace, compared to the wars before and after.
Unfortunately the video isn't very accurate, it didn't show that the earliest form of Switzerland was formed in 1291. But still a great reaction and talk about the interesting history of Europe.
What is inaccurate about that? The old Confederation (the first Swiss state) was never a sovereign state, but part of the HRE, and that is how it is shown in the video. Switzerland only gained its independence from the HRE in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, together with the Netherlands.
@@perfilgenerico8717 Britons, Gauls, Iberians were all Celts. Just because the Celts were universally called "Celts" in Central Europe does not mean it is wrong. The reason for this is that numerous Germanic and Slavic ethnic groups settled in Eastern/Northern Europe at the same time, making them easier to distinguish. In fact, Central Europe was the epicenter of Celtic cultures, such as the Hallstatt period.
Since you seem fascinated by the Roman Empire, Connor, you might like to learn all about it here: "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" - Megaprojects, by the excellent Simon Whistler. Enjoy!
* One of biggest empires on european continents that lasted 400 years disappears completely, France casually takes on all of europe by itself * "Hanover being part of UK is crazy.."
and huns were never foren it was a confederation of diferent etnic people who wanted to take back there lands from roman tirany Avitohol (153-353?) is the first name in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans. Little is known about him. According to the document he is from the Dulo clan and most probably was considered and respected as the forefather of the khans. Some researchers claim that Avitohol was identical with Attila the Hun who was succeeded by his son Ernak or Irnik (the second name mentioned in the Nominalia). Others suggests that Avitohol was a semi-legendary ruler who may have been either a descendant or an ancestor of Attila (see Dulo clan).
One thing I will say, as a Czech I am quite proud of my country's history, We go back to Celts and beyond that even and if You track that We never really get wiped off the back, We either hold the lines OR join a empire (until the Germany in WW2), call us Celts, Boheminas, Slavs, CZECHs, We stay strong and unbound LOL o7 o7 o7
The Romans invaded the south of what is now England 54 BC Julius Caeser over the next 3 to 400 years they tried to capture the entire Island, they only ever successfully held south of Hadrians wall, they tried to build Antonine wall in Scotland (what remains of it is in my front garden) only lasted 20 years at that before the went back to Hadrians, kept trying to come back up. Then it was Jutes from Germany (Who people wrongly called Saxons) while they were trying to consolidate their holds in England the North men arrived, a lot of them settled in Ireland and Scotland and took on native names, like MacLeod, there were alliances formed, the saxons were not so lucky, England was mostly over ran. Then when that was going on the Normans arrived, who were Northmen that had settled in France. After the Normans, Henry VIII declared himself gods representative on earth and had to burn everyone in England that didn't agree with him, once he done that he tried to invade everywhere else. That led into hundreds of years of fighting, only ended in Ireland in the 1990's and is political today in Scotland and Wales.
that's why you have to understand our DNA, we are not afraid, we do what you see in football stadiums, we are in car rally races 20 cm from the track etc etc... nobody will ever beat us
The maps of the late 4th century - early 5th century are definitely not correct for the Iberian peninsula. When the Huns came into eastern Europe, many of the Germanic peoples there got displaced and were forced to search for new lands. Look into the history of the Suebi(/Suevi) for this. They started conquest and takeover of Galicia and Portugal around 360/370 and kept on doing that for a while (they do show up on the map a little later.) But having been to this places not even a month ago, I can tell you that they were first taken over by Suevi around that time and had a much bigger hold on those regions than these maps suggest. Also what you describe as era's of stability during Roman times are really just a fault of the representation given by these maps. By grouping Germanic peoples/Celts/gauls and so on instead of showing their individual tribes (which also often faught amongst eachother.) and not giving them clear boundaries between the larger cultural groupings -> so you don't see the wars and raids between Germanic peoples and gauls or Celts for example. This gives a really twisted view of reality showing more peace than there actually was. But since these cultures didn't write stuff down, and this also requires a lot of research, I don't fault the creator, I think they already did an amazing job. But there are definitely a lot more faults with this representation than I've just described.
Oh also please, the Romans and Suevi later are reported to fight the Huns together as a way for these Suevi and many other tribes from that original location where the Huns invaded initially, so they could return to their homelands (creating many of the countries that sprung up there later, as well as assimilating into other countries as local populations) And this also provided a buffer zone for Romans (Byzantium) I hope this and the answer above helped with your question at the end
I have always been confused about the English name; in Finnish we also have the German-factor as ”Pyhä saksalais-roomalainen keisarikunta”. (saxon -> saksa).
Since Charlemagne, the realm was merely referred to as the Roman Empire. The term _sacrum_ ("holy", in the sense of "consecrated") in connection with the medieval Roman Empire was used beginning in 1157 under Frederick I Barbarossa ("Holy Empire"). The term was added to reflect Frederick's ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy. The form "Holy Roman Empire" is attested from 1254 onward. The exact term "Holy Roman Empire" was not used until the 13th century, before which the empire was referred to variously as _universum regnum_ ("the whole kingdom", as opposed to the regional kingdoms), _imperium christianum_ ("Christian empire"), or _Romanum imperium_ ("Roman empire"), but the Emperor's legitimacy always rested on the concept of _translatio imperii_ -- that he held supreme power inherited from the ancient emperors of Rome. In a decree following the Diet of Cologne in 1512, the name was changed to the *Holy Roman Empire of the Germanic Nation* (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicae), a form first used in a document in 1474. The adoption of this new name coincided with the loss of imperial territories in Italy and Burgundy to the south and west by the late 15th century, but also to emphasize the new importance of the German Imperial Estates in ruling the Empire due to the Imperial Reform.
it cannot be overstated just how valuable and worthwhile the EU really is. Theres lots of work still to do, yes. But the EU has brought so much growth, stability and strength in our economies and countries. Its a thing of beauty and she needs to be protected from nationalist fools at all costs!
It seems that the video counted HRE as a bloc, and not as a sclerotic power as it was. From 13th century, France already had a larger population than HRE, If we count the fact that the Royal Capetian Domain was larger than that of the Emperor.
Gauls were respected by the early Romans (Brennus had an impact on them). They had strong connexions in term of deals and Rome was a Repuplic so they had to make a casus belli to war against Gauls. Also Alps and Pyrenean mountains are a natural border to the Italian and Spanish peninsulas preventing a major invasion. But let's be honest. Gauls resisted just a few years during Julius Caesar campaign. Allobroges were previously destroyed by the Romans with a stupid move, not waiting for their allies (Arvernes) and became Romes subjects from the Narbonese province.
@@LynxLord1991 yes Caesar suffered a defeat at Gergovie and the whole campaign wasn't easy but it was such a succesfull Campaign for him that he went from a respected General to the major character from Rome still remembered nowadays. Vercingetorix did well. But the Gauls were not united and couldn't compare with Roman legions. Facts that the war itself took not so long for them to conquer Gaul's land from their pre established province to the rhein river
1:20 there's too little information, there weren't that civilazed, and of course they were later conquered by roman empire, but you can look up the equipment and some other stuff
There’s was a German kingdom briefly before the pope elected the then German king as the emperor of the new Holy Roman Empire
the pope didn't 'elect' the emperor, he just crowned him after the election. the emperor was elected by the prince electors of the HRE. this procedure was formalised by a golden bull in 1356
there was allways a german kingdom, the 7 prince electors, elect at first the german king and the Holy roman emperor. with other words the Holy Roman Emporer hold also the Title German King. The 7 prince elletors are the King of Bohemia(Arch-Cupbearer), The Count Palatine of the Rhine(Arch-Steward) ,the Duke of Saxony(Arch-Marshal), the Margrave of Brandenburg(Arch-Chamberlain) and than 3 Archbishops. The Archbishop of Mainz became the title Archchancellor of Germany, the Archbishop of Cologne became Archchancellor of Italy and the last is the Archbishop of Trier became Archchancellor of Burgundy.
Afaik usually with Conrad (911) the first non Carolingian king of East Francia , the name is changed to Germany.
@@marcovtjevNo it didn't. The name was still officially east frankish kingdom. The other comments refer to the "german kingdom"/"regnum teutonicum" but this name wasn't used until the 11th century.
That beside, there is a difference between the terms "german kingdom" and "germany"
@@Smurez I think it was called Kingdom of the Germans translated to English. Besides that there always was a Kingdom of Germans/Germany inside the Holy Roman Empire, you can easily google this.
You are getting confused by Prussia. It's a bit confusing couse name was given to different entities. Prussia as a region is located north-eastern Germany, polish coast and stretches up till Kaliningrad. It was inhabited by Prussians - group of Baltic people (you can think of brotherly nation to Latvians and Lithuanians). They were killed off/assimilated. The name stayed and got adopted by Teutonic Order when they secularized. During the years those lands got inharited/bought by royality from Branderburg. Kingdom of Prussia was a combination of Brandenburg and Prussia with Brandenburg (Berlin) being the core of the country and rest being it's provinces. Had they used Kingdom of Brandenburg name it would be more accurate and less confusing.
the Hohenzollerns couldn't call themselves 'king of...' as this title was the prerogative of the emperor to grant for everything inside the HRE. their province of Prussia was outside the HRE and the margraves of Brandenburg (they were one of the seven prince electors too) then started to call themselves _king _*_in_*_ prussia_ by 1701. after wrestling Silesia from the Habsburgs (the emperors) Frederik the Great then felt entitled and bold enough to call himself _king of Prussia_ from 1772 onwards.
@@embreis2257 Just to add, I think essential for the adoption of "King Of Prussia" was that after the second partition of poland in 1772 both West and East Prussia were held by the Hohenzollern in unison. Frederick was free from constraints from the Emperor and the Polish King regarding the title.
I see it differentiated by calling original people there Pruthenians and land Pruthenia. And post-Teutonic Prussia.
Prussia was historicaly just Kaliningrad and a bit of Polish lands South of these, there were only 1 important portand it was mainly a Polish vassal state, that was later conquered by brandenburg that allowed them to claim a King title outside of HRE.
For me it was always horific that Germans claimed legacy of nation that they genocided and integrated, they were happy from that reason and embraced it fully.
North-Eastern Germany / North-Western Poland was Pomerania, another Slavic tribe, conquered by Polish and Germans during Medieval times. It became its own Duchy. The region is still called Pomerania to this day - just sepearated between Germany and Poland - and was only Prussian after the "Modern" Prussia took over that land. But before that, it was never Prussia, not even "Old" Prussian.
You know a lot more about history than the average US-Amerikan!
Not a lot more tbh I know everything he was talking about and I’m only in high school
@@JadenMatute that just mean you also know a lot more than the average joe man x)
Still not much.
When you look at the Roman Empire, it was really impressive that the boundaries hardly changed for over 250 years.
HRE and Poland-Lithuania were incredible stable and had a huge influence at their time. Great historical countries.
@@ruas4721 Within HRE, and even after with our move into A-H Empire, the western Bohemian-German borders go without virtualy any change for 700-800 years or so, until certain Austrian painter mucks it up.
@@Oumegi even then the border is returned to its pre hitler state after the war
Yes the Kingdom of Germany did exist for a period prior to the founding of the HRE. I suppose it's somewhat interchangeable with "East Francia" but it's not exactly the same East Francia we think of that was created after Charlemagne's Empire split. Much like the Imperial Kingdom of Italy, they're not the same as their modern day unified counterparts.
Yeah, the thing is that the Frankish Empire is the first German empire, I'm Frankish btw.,
it is just that the romano-celtic people in what is now called France, happen to be named after us.
there was allways a german King, the Holy Roman Emporer hold also this Title. the 7 Prince Electors(Kurfürten) want make money so its better to elect more as one Title.
“Famous” countries did not exist (Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Germany…) but some we consider “new Europe” existed before-Serbia, Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania…
The romans had trouble grabbing the Gauls because Asterix was there! :D
Don't forget Obelix, or Dogmatix!
7:45 the guy who stopped them was Belgian (if you were to put a nation on it), Charles Martel
In reality he was Frankish, which was a Germanic people who migrated towards the low countries and eventually established their first actual state in what is basically modern day Belgium. Most influential Frankish Empire folk were born in Belgium, like Clovis, Charles Martel, Chalemagne and more
1960:
"60 years plus of not much border change."
[The Balkans feels forgotten and invisible...]
But you're right. For being Europe, that was a long calm period.
The name Balkans comes from a mountain which runs mostly in Bulgaria. let's call it Former Yugoslavia shit, because Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Turkey which are also on the Balkans, had nothing to do with this.
"Pax Europaea" is called
Is always crazy to see in every timeline map the mongol just appear out of knowere
The Mongols were quick and efficient when expanding west. Nobody had time to sit down and take notes, just grab your cat and run away. And if you survived it nobody you told about them believed you until it was their time to grab the cat and run.
Yeah 500.000 people died in Hungary against them in 1241 but in the second mongol invasion they were defeated in 1285
@@zoltan6451 yes because the mongol were not ready to face against armor knight and even then they had some victory is not until they're leader died in Mongolia that they had to return to Mongolia to pick an new khan
@@muhammadhabibieamiro3639 yes by the Grace of god our people survived , people Who resisted the Mongol empire didnt end well , baghdad for example ...
@@zoltan6451 the destruction of Baghdad was truly a sad and horrific event not just in islamic history but many history Baghdad and the majority of the islamic world went through the islamic golden Age while Europe was is the dark age but like most in unfortunately end but islam did have one victory over the mongols and that is the mongols them self become muslim
This is a video I would like to come back to so I can take my time and watch more carefully as the map changes year on year, frame by frame. It was truly fascinating. Didn't know this video existed. You know much more about this subject than I do. Very impressed. I have concentrated mostly on UK history so far. This will help me put all of it in the larger frame. So thanks Connor. Take care - Love from the UK
The EU was the answer to all that fighting, the continent tore itself apart for thousands of years, various countries tried to dominated europe, but in the end our only solution to survive is to willingly band together, as it is the only power multiplier in Europe.
And for all those who say that the EU is an empire ; the EU isnt an empire, it transcends empires.
An utter misconception. Its the lessons eventually learned about mutual self destruction after WW2 that protected Europe from further military infighting, and it was NATO that protected Europe from outsiders. That's the nuclear umbrella of France, the UK and the USA, only one of which country is inside the EU. Furthermore, Europe was rescued during WW2 also by outsiders, not one country currently inside the EU came to a forlorn Europe's rescue. The very idea that the EU could protect anything other than a trade barrier is laughable. Where is this great EU army buddy.........?
EU propaganda. The only reason of non major conflict is the nuclear warhead. Thats it.
Germany in the eu kicked the ass of many powers. Even the us that came very late to the party suffered the double of casualities when confronting the germans. And the us was not alone there. Imagine if it tried alone? What a spectacular ko we would see.
And germany is only one country of the eu. In fact the army in the eu is much greater than the us by many times. The advantage of the us is in the weapons.
And the us managed to be the superpower that it was because it had no competitors at the time besides the soviet. I would like to see us getting so strong if the european were trying against it. Even torn because of war, the old grandpa knows much more about war than any snot nosed new kid on the block.
@@estranhokonstaabout what You talk,the EU did not exist at that time.
@@ShabanAjeti Yep. i do not think you understood my point or you would never bring such a unrelated thing.
At the point where you said "60 years of stability" the area that was then called Yugoslavia still had to go through some sh**. And is still going through stuff tbh. It's interesting how many people forget that region and its pretty recent conflicts.
The USSR also split up at the same time as Yugoslavia, I found it kind of mind blowing he didn't mention that? I mean, I get it that a lot of people forget about the Balkans, but knowing about the US's obsession with Russia, I'd think he would at least mention that. 60 years of peace? Wth
@@edinal.5404 Cold War was a Huge Part of History. How could he Forget about USSR Collapse when it comes to Major Border Change?
I guess it was relative stability. Just like now it's pretty peaceful in Europe. We only have one war
The roman empire did not split because of the huns or the germanic people, at that point the empire still didnt know what was about to happen.
A split of the roman empire was nothing new, the only thing special is that it was the last one to happen. If they could have held off the germanic tribes, the empire would have certainly reunited and resplit many time over in the coming times.
What brought about the downfall was the series of incompetent rulers in the west, and the east having to deal with its own attackers simultaneously. If the west had more stable and competent rulers, it would have managed to survive just like the east.
Also, the division of the empire was purely administrative, de facto it continued to be one empire, with a contiguous economic sphere and pool of people.
The eastern empire afterwards never gave up their claims on the entire roman empire, and in fact some of the early germanic states were nominally vassals of the eastern roman empire like the ostrogoths, and later Justinian also tried to begin the reconquest of the west as seen in the 500s and 600s. Potentially, if there were no arabs, the east might have managed to rebuild the entire empire over the centuries. But the arabs did in fact come, in a crucial decade of weakness after a large roman persian war, and dealt the roman and persian empires their actual death blow. This is the true end of antiquity and here the middle ages finally took hold of the byzantine rump state. All the while in the caliphate the new islamic golden age began, largely grounded on previous roman and persian structures.
I guess the real causes of the downfall are not yet fully known. Some put a question: did Roman Empire ever undoubtedly fall (or completely fall) ?.
@@giuliogrifi7739 it didnt fall if you think about it, because that word usually implies a quick succession of things that led to a rapid disintegration, and most empires of history meet that criteria, but rome was different. The roman empire was very different from other empires in many things, including this one. I would argue this is because, especially during the crisis of the 3rd century, it actually transformed into a mega-two-nation state, similar to china. The roman empire by that point wasnt just elites ruling over various peoples, but the people actually identified with the roman empire, everywhere.
@@ldubt4494 That's what I meant...thank you !.
In the movie Spartacus, Kirk Douglas is described as a "Thracian dog." by his Roman captors.
the headline in the thumbnail is easily explained: Europe was a place always 'densely' populated compared to the resources available and therefore highly competitive. competition tries to make other competitors go away, especially over rare resources. humans are a greedy bunch. only when weapons of war reached an industrial scale and tens of millions lost their lives did they start to find alternative dispute management methods.
All empires fall the same way. By consumption. An empire grows when it is hungry and falls when it is fed.
When it is too big to carry it's own weight.
Just try to remember : Bow of Carpathian Mtns. and the Pannonian/Hungarian Basin.
..or middle-Danube basin..
carpatian basin, and half of hungary was under roman control, the border was the duna (danube) river
You´re right about the reason behind the split between West and East Roman Empire. It was a administrative solution, decided by what they thought would be the best way to deal with all the chaos at the borders.
Inspired by the Roman Republic old Institution of always having two Consuls governing Rome at the same time, they decided to create the "new" Institution of having two Emperors at the same time governing the two halves of the Empire. Theorethically, the Eastern Emperor was the junior one of the two and if needed should always follow and support the Western Emperor, in practice that rarely worked that way.
The french guy that held back the muslina was Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne and namesake of carolingian empire
all german germanic
The video also neatly ignores all of scandinavia up until 800 ish which is wrong and ingnores the jutes and the infighting
Bohemia kingdom was actually downplayed a lot, especially around the 13 sentury.
The Holy Roman Empire was not unified. The reason why in the video is shown that way is merely didactic.
That is actually a bit imprecise, people always think of the last 150 to 200 years of the holy roman empire.
The Holy Roman Empire was an actor of significance to european politics before that.
The HRE was pretty centralized at first (well, as centralized as a feudal state could be), but over the next thousand years, local nobles got more and more power, and the Empire became more and more decentralized. It was a long and slow process, and it's especially noteworthy during the last few hundred years, as other states only became more centralized in comparison (absolute monarchy and all that). Then things like the rise of Prussia made the whole concept basically irrelevant, and Napoleon's conquests were the final nail in the Empire's coffin.
@@Mercure250 Yep! But it is a common misconception. In fact, the Swedish invasion of 1630 and the subsequent direct intervention of France thwarted the attempt to create a more centralized institution of the empire. And it was precisely because of this military intervention in the already existing civil war that it failed. We all know the consequences, the chain of events that this set in motion, all the way to the Nazis. In 1648, this was put into effect, with the total weakening of the emperor, reduced to his own domestic power.
@@Emanuel-t5e I guess HRE could be rightly defined the birth of Europe.
Is not holy IS not Roman and IS not an empire!!
As a European and a Serb, I believe that it was similar in other parts of the world, but unfortunately there are no records. Maybe not to that extent and that amount of aggression, but there was certainly a lot going on.
A good part of the history of Serbia itself has been lost. From 630 (when it was created as a vassal of Byzantium, which itself was sought after when Serbs and Croats settled on its devastated territory) until about 1200 and the Nemanjić dynasty, there are not many details and preserved things and documents, and that is about 40% of the time that is this people in the Balkans. Even the names of many rulers and their dynasties are not known, nor when they ruled.
4:35 You are right that is Hungary and Northern Serbia but that part is actually pretty flat since a sea was once there called the Pannonian Sea, you were probably looking for like Carpathian mounts which are in Romania
The split of the Roman Empire happened because of succession and religion.
various factors tbh
Muchos factores , la vuelta al campo , la llegada de guerreros germanos a las legiones , etc
The borders not chancing that much during the Cold War doesn't necessarily mean that those were particularly peaceful times.
7:46 The Frankish ruler who stooped the Caliphat's conquests to France was Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne
Mordor is crazy loooool😂 10:35
Hes not really wrong tho lol
Greetings from Russia❤
Your final part about the Roman empire fall, sorry but no, you see all this under a weird non historical lense. Back then there was just not that much structure socially, there was no borders like we conceive them today. There was simply not enough population for that to hold thousands of killometers. Most of the "invasions" are a missnomer, most were just refugees from a chain of tribal displacement. Rome was already weakened by something that made them a powerful entity at first, logistics. Rome became too big for the technologies of its time, it couldn't communicate and circulate from one end to the next efficiently enough and that made it a giant with clay feets. Laws and politic couldn't be unified, taxes couldn't be efficiently gathered. The ethnic and politic center of Rome was not interested in far away wars making the other regions isolated and with different needs and aspirations. The issue was that the wealth of Rome was based on agressive expansion, the s**** trade and collonialism. Once it stoped being able to expand it contracted due to its growing inneficiency. This is what happened to every big empire at some point. Communication and transport was just not efficient enough.
2:38 Congrats for your assumption, Caesar Didn’t want to erase Marseille (greek colony) to actually help Rome to keep clean mediterran sea and police it
6:12 i know that tune! Gladiator!
You'd make a good teacher , with your passion for history .
Good reaction dude
Great reaction. Thank you!
3:19 The correct pronunciation of "Teutoburg" is "Toyto-boorg".
The German diphthongs "äu" and "eu" sound like the English "oy", and the German "u" sounds like the English "oo". 🙂
Hungary as a manatee is funny. Italy is obviously a boot, kicking Sicily (a shark?). What's Britain? A Tyrannosaurus Rex?
This "Germany" that you see is because right before the HRE, the elected king of East Francia was also referred as "king of Germany", the idea was that he wasn't only a Frankish king but ruled over other notable Germanic people such as the Saxons or Bavarians.
But in any case both terminology encompassed more or less the same idea.
In the same way, we see "West Francia", and later "France", but the French kings were still crowned and referred as "King of the Franks" as late as the XIIIth century and even much later. The distinction started when Philip Augustus won over the English and tried to asses that he was the undisputed ruler of the land France rather than the ruler of the people Franks to counter the english claims in the kingdom.
11:20 1336 Lithuania begins the big push, 1365 we have access to both baltic and black sea, 1795 ends our (first) great empire.
1918 we independent again and make republic, 1940 ends or first republic.
1990 we independent *again* and make new republic , ...... (black hole/iron stars era ends) our second empire ends.
4:40 it really shows the opposite, it had to fight in too many internal fights, it also doesn't show the pillaging they were suffering by the neighbouring tribes, of course no one wants to conquer that territory yet cause they wouldn't be able to hold it for very long, but at this stage it was about to break into pieces xD
Great choice of music, Hans Zimmer 👍
Forget cinema, Europe is more interesting to watch!
When there was East, Middle, and West Francia, it’s because when Charlemagne died his empire was split in three (between his grandsons if I remember correctly). The middle part didn’t last very long, the western part became France, and the eastern part became Germany.
about the Greek colonies in south of France, they were created around -600 BC, Gaul did not yet exist.
Nonsense, the Gauls existed long before. It was just that those territories were sparsely populated and a Greek trading colony was an asset.
@@erosgritti5171
Gaul (or the Gauls) as a territory of a recognized people, existed from -450BC to -25BC with the arrival and settlement of Celtic peoples from Central Europe. Before that, the territory was populated by nomadic indigenous tribes (megalith peoples).
I live in one of these ancient Greek colonies in the south of France and I use metal detectors. Coins are important witnesses to the history of peoples and the soil doesn't lie. There is no Gallic coin older than the 4th century BC.
@@crowblank1 Those nomadics were long gone when the Celts arrived. Agriculture was introduced in France around the 6th millennium BC, and the Megalith builders, farmers not nomadics, came after that.
@@crowblank1maybe they just didn't use coins at that time
@@mathias9542 The Greeks established in the south of the country had been minting their coins since their arrival in the 6th BC and the first Gallic coins date from the 4th BC. It's hard to believe that, among the 60 Gallic tribes, it was necessary to wait 2 centuries before adopting a system of currencies.
During the Holy Roman Empire there were hardly any external border shifts, but the respective kings, princes, counts, etc. were able to expand their territories through internal skirmishes or poliical marriages.
Added to this were, of course, the attacks of the Vikings, etc.
I would like to point out that while its true that the HRE was extremely decentralized for most of its existence, this was true for every realm back then. The technological limitations back then meant having centralised states was essentially impossible. Most kings had little power if the nobility wanted to band together.
Hence why the austrian painters turn was the 3rd. Holy roman empire - 1. Kaiser wilhelm - 2. My main man 3. So next we will have 4. Just like our world cup wins in soccer/fussball.
Guess then he did not consider Karl der Große aka Charlemagne as the first
At the beginning, the Holy Roman Empire was not a patchwork, as it later became. The large tribal alliances formed the duchies of Bavaria, Thuringia, Swabia, Saxony, Franconia, Upper Lorraine and Lower Lorraine. And then there were a few imperial cities that were only subordinate to the German king or, after coronation by the Pope, to the emperor.
The chaos came later.
You should react to the deluge second northern war every day by CherepashkaShusha. He does mapping really well and actually you should react to his other mapping videos too
Eventually Rome became so large that the government had difficulty ruling and protecting its vast territory. Many tribes were moving into Roman lands and could not be stopped due to weakening Roman leadership and political instability.
In 286 CE, Emperor Diocletian decided to divide Rome into two sections to try and stabilize the empire. For a hundred years Rome experienced even more divisions until the empire was finally divided in 395 CE and became the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire.
One of the reasons why Iberia was so hard to conquer and, só, connect with Rome is that Iberians were experts on guerrilla warfare, in particular Lusitanians... who were only defeated when Rome managed to assassinate their leader, Viriato. The famous phrase "Rome does not pay traitors" comes from this, from when Viriato's assassin, one of his closest friends came to collect his money and Rome refused.
And this guerrilla warfare was still usefull against Napoleon. Alongside Wellington, the constant guerrilla attacks on the French, by the Portuguese on the French suplly chain, was crucial to Napoleon's defeat in Portugal.
Of course, it has to do with the Portuguese landscape and the fact that it was Impossible to beat Rome's legions and French army in open field (and direct combat).
The spaces in the Roman empire are the mountains. Pyrenees, Central Massif and Alps.
7:20 what do you mean watch out Spain? Spain didn't for about another 1000 years, Hispania and Spain are 2 different things, Hispania is Iberia = Modern day Portugal + Spain, Spain was named after Hispania, but it is not Hispania, Hispania is the Roman name for the Peninsula
Hispania is a Phoenician origin of Iberia.
Hispania has been a political entity since its occupation by the Romans in the 2nd century BC.
Later it was independent with the Visigoth kingdom of Hispania.
After the Muslim invasion of 711, what the northern Christian kingdoms called the "Restoration" and modern historians since the 19th century the "Reconquista" began, which is nothing other than recovering the territory occupied by the Visigoth kingdom of Hispania and reestablishing Christianity.
King Alfonso III of Asturias initiated the idea as early as 906 as "Adefonsus Hispaniae rex".
King Alfonso VII in 1135 was crowned "Imperator totius Hispaniae".
Finally, with the reconquest of Granada (1492) and the final union of all the Christian kingdoms except Portugal, it is considered that the kingdom of Spain was finally born.
King Charles I, the successor of the Catholic Monarchs, will be the first to bear that title over an unified Spain, later perfected by his son Philip II as king of all Hispania (1580) (Spain+Portugal).
Hispania = Spain, It is simply the translation.
@@Tago-h1b Gran respuesta!!!! 👏👏👏.
@@Tago-h1b Not it isn't. Hispania and Spain are different things. They're not even the same thing in Portuguese and Spanish (Espanha/España)
😂😂😂
Cause are diferent languages!
There was not a unified germany, but there was a medieval kingdom of Germany (regnum Teutonicum) which also was alongside the kingdom of the Italy (regnum Italicum) and the kingdom of Bohemia one of the constitutent parts of the HRE. When Italy largely left the HRE however the institutions of the kingdom of the Germans was merged with the imperial institutions so lost all meaning.
In the High Middle Ages you had a German crown, a Roman crown and the imperial crown separately and at times wielded by different people. Once it got more codefied usually a contender started as King of the Germans, then went to Italy to be crowned King of the Romans and meet the Pope to receive the imperial crown. Lateron the German crown denoted the successor to an emperor but had no other meaning anymore.
Old Prussia and later Prussia had little in common. In essence the dukes of Brandenburg wanted to gain a royal title so the used the duchy of Prussia outside of HRE to elevate their position to that of kings, mainly a rivalry with Saxony who were elected kings of Poland multiple times. As the imperial traditions only allowed Bohemia to be a kingdom within the HRE by that time they needed to call themselves "Kings in Prussia" at first. All in all it is a pretty artificial construct by the dukes of Brandenburg to create a modern state by the end of the 17th century. The economic and cultural center was always Berlin and Brandenburg, Prussia was mainly farmland and hence however a good source of their conservative officer corps.
i think u are correct about the roman empire split, but add the fact that the East payed to have their enemies go West and not attack the east aswell. The East gained alot with the split
Yes. My family was in war since year 768, first crusade
If you want to learn about the origins of the HRE, look up Otto the 1st.
Great video.
After the 50's they are very few wars on european continent the biggest the civil wars of Yugoslavia. But we could also cunt USSR military intervention (versus civil) on satelit state. And of cours Russian wars on their border (Moldavia, Georgia and Ukraine) or inside (chenchya).
But that not going as smoltie as it seame. After the WW2 they was 40 to 60 milion who was move from one country to an other for having a more omogen population.
Wasn't Spartacus from Thraces? 🤔
It seems he was a Roman soldier of Thracian origin.
Missed the 80 year war the Dutch provinces against Spain(1566-1648), which we won.
Seriously? Spain never invaded Dutch lands. It was a civil war between diferent Houses. Habsburg vs Orange
@@bilbohob7179 The Spanish king sent a sizeable occupation army to the Low Countries, led by Spanish noblemen. They tortured and burned people alive because of their different religious views and / or political rivalry and generally unleashed a reign of terror. Pretty much like a catholic version of IS.
@@HeikoEbeling Occupation army of spaniards or of the HRE?? Occupation is debatable because Charles had born in Low Countires and he was legit Lord of Netherlands in addition to archduke of Austria, king of Spain, Duke of burgundy.... and of course emperor of HRE.
If you go against your legit lord then there are a civil war and most of the troops of Charles were catholics of the low countries.
Reign of terror posible but for sure protestans did the same of worst things.... They liked burn alive people... protestant version of IS??
@@bilbohob7179 Spain invaded the low countries, thats a fact.
@@commandbrawler9348 It's not
This is basically what I know about Thrace:
One of the major types of gladiator was named the Thracian. Other than that, I know that the Thrace region is split between Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey today, and they make cool bagpipes. Oh, and Spartacus was probably from there.
As an addition to that, they were noted gold smiths in the bronze age (due to several large gold mines in the region) and were noted for sending more auxiliary troops in place of higher taxes more often thean the majority of roman administrative regions (and more mercenaries consistently hired by the romans from them before they were conquered).That's also pretty much all I know about them
They also clapped romes ass so hard, that they had to invent better armor.
Also split with Greece.
@ruas4721 ohh yea, they had those wierd inward curving "katanaesque" swords from there, the ones that can go over shields and into shoulders easily, I forgot about those. (Note that katanaesque was the description I remember calling them when I was a kid but feel like it still is a good visual descriptor)
@@TheNatty88 right. I don't know why I forgot about that.
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. It was a confederation of lower ranking states (kingdoms, principalities, etc.) that were unified under one "emperor", because the Pope wanted to diminish the real Roman emperor in Constantinople following the rivalry between the two "holy" sees.
Volga Bulgaria was not shown. It took the first Mongol blow after inflicting the first defeat over the Mongols during their European conquest - the Battle of Samara Bend in 1226.
"hanover being part of the UK is crazy"
alright, who's gonna tell him that it actually was the other way round?
hi i am new to your channal and i think you are becoming my favorite history reactor also i have suggestion can you please react to kings and genrals video on how rome conquerd greece its 2 hours long but i think you should be able to split the video and react to it part by part
I was surprised to know that in the year of 1047, Barcelona already existed before the kingdom of Spain. Amazing.
Lol exists County of Barcelona the name is for the City equal exist many many other cities equal or more oldest with Barcelona exemples before actual Spain for exemple Kingdom.of Aragón or Valencia ; Castille etc etc this names exists before actual Spain you say a nonsense
@@Benito-lr8mz
I was being intentionally sarcastic
You are incredibly boring....and slow.
It could be it was founded by Hannibal's dad Hamilcar Barca... More than 200 years BC būt maybe it isn't true
@@lkrnpk I was being sarcastic but I guess the "innocence" is overwhelming!
I've said it as a replay to a comment and I'll say it here as well. The name "Balkans" comes from a mountain which is located mostly in Bulgaria. What happened in the 90's is some former Yugoslavia s..t and has nothing to do with Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Turkey which are also part of the Balkans. Europe is infamous for starting wars out of nothing, lets not start another one here. Or as an American friend of mine once said: "The easiest way to get shot, is to draw Balkan borders by memory"
I think this is just a simplification, they would run out of colours and it would get confusing if they showed every member of the HRE, its easier to just show the HRE
The "Holy Roman Empire" was already Germany, the more correct name was "Holy Roman Empire of German Nations"...
The history of Europe goes waaaaaay back than 400 bc
Cant draw many borders on a map though
That is called ancient history. Before recorded history
@@LalaDepala_00 The era before recorded history is called prehistoric,
@@LalaDepala_00 there is PLENTY of documented history before 400BC just not much CONFIRMED history so It's very personalized towards which ever kingdom/tribe/state/"whatever" was forward enough to "document"
'Caesar' is the title of Emperor, not a specific individual person. There was a total of 12 roman emperors over the years.
The title of Caesar was given to him by the first Roman emperor Octavo Augustus in honor of his uncle Julius Caesar.
16:35 Poland changed all of its neighbours in the 90s
at 4:30 that is the river Danube, not a montain. Danube was the limes for centuries. Yes, that is Hungary.
Hahah I always feel the stress from americans talkin about war here in Europe. Its like they are relieved af to see us not fighting each other :D Its kinda cute
Just impressive to see the longevity and stability of roman empire. Even if you know it in numbers to see it that way, you can feel how great it was. And what gift to it's people in peace, compared to the wars before and after.
Unfortunately the video isn't very accurate, it didn't show that the earliest form of Switzerland was formed in 1291. But still a great reaction and talk about the interesting history of Europe.
From the look of the map, those calts must have been pretty much only in central europe, no British isles, no celt-iberian
This Video is pretty bad and only shows basic things. And some things are even wrong....
What is inaccurate about that? The old Confederation (the first Swiss state) was never a sovereign state, but part of the HRE, and that is how it is shown in the video. Switzerland only gained its independence from the HRE in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, together with the Netherlands.
@@perfilgenerico8717 Britons, Gauls, Iberians were all Celts. Just because the Celts were universally called "Celts" in Central Europe does not mean it is wrong. The reason for this is that numerous Germanic and Slavic ethnic groups settled in Eastern/Northern Europe at the same time, making them easier to distinguish. In fact, Central Europe was the epicenter of Celtic cultures, such as the Hallstatt period.
@@-Eisenfaust- Switzerland/Old Swiss Confederacy was de facto independent after the swabian wars in 1499.
The Roman empire had stability for much longer than anyone lol
«60 years of almost no border change in Europe».
Switzerland for many CENTURIES: «Hold my beer!»
Czech beer, sorry, i meant Bohemian beer XD
Балканы: ☠️☠️☠️
Since you seem fascinated by the Roman Empire, Connor, you might like to learn all about it here: "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" - Megaprojects, by the excellent Simon Whistler.
Enjoy!
* One of biggest empires on european continents that lasted 400 years disappears completely, France casually takes on all of europe by itself *
"Hanover being part of UK is crazy.."
Do one for middle east and Indian subcontinent please
wehn you see celts and germanis, there were all fighting all the time, there is no writing so we dont know who faught who
and huns were never foren it was a confederation of diferent etnic people who wanted to take back there lands from roman tirany
Avitohol (153-353?) is the first name in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans. Little is known about him. According to the document he is from the Dulo clan and most probably was considered and respected as the forefather of the khans. Some researchers claim that Avitohol was identical with Attila the Hun who was succeeded by his son Ernak or Irnik (the second name mentioned in the Nominalia). Others suggests that Avitohol was a semi-legendary ruler who may have been either a descendant or an ancestor of Attila (see Dulo clan).
It's a bad map, a lot of things are incorrectly named. Also, several completely different and independent formations are combined under one color
People never stopped fighting.. And never will.
One thing I will say, as a Czech I am quite proud of my country's history, We go back to Celts and beyond that even and if You track that We never really get wiped off the back, We either hold the lines OR join a empire (until the Germany in WW2), call us Celts, Boheminas, Slavs, CZECHs, We stay strong and unbound LOL o7 o7 o7
The Romans invaded the south of what is now England 54 BC Julius Caeser over the next 3 to 400 years they tried to capture the entire Island, they only ever successfully held south of Hadrians wall, they tried to build Antonine wall in Scotland (what remains of it is in my front garden) only lasted 20 years at that before the went back to Hadrians, kept trying to come back up.
Then it was Jutes from Germany (Who people wrongly called Saxons) while they were trying to consolidate their holds in England the North men arrived, a lot of them settled in Ireland and Scotland and took on native names, like MacLeod, there were alliances formed, the saxons were not so lucky, England was mostly over ran.
Then when that was going on the Normans arrived, who were Northmen that had settled in France.
After the Normans, Henry VIII declared himself gods representative on earth and had to burn everyone in England that didn't agree with him, once he done that he tried to invade everywhere else. That led into hundreds of years of fighting, only ended in Ireland in the 1990's and is political today in Scotland and Wales.
The Swedish empire is so underestimated
that's why you have to understand our DNA, we are not afraid, we do what you see in football stadiums, we are in car rally races 20 cm from the track etc etc... nobody will ever beat us
Play Rome: Total War 2 if you want to get to grips with greek names/ancient factions in general.
A lot of that peace & stability -- due to the USA.
The maps of the late 4th century - early 5th century are definitely not correct for the Iberian peninsula.
When the Huns came into eastern Europe, many of the Germanic peoples there got displaced and were forced to search for new lands.
Look into the history of the Suebi(/Suevi) for this.
They started conquest and takeover of Galicia and Portugal around 360/370 and kept on doing that for a while (they do show up on the map a little later.)
But having been to this places not even a month ago, I can tell you that they were first taken over by Suevi around that time and had a much bigger hold on those regions than these maps suggest.
Also what you describe as era's of stability during Roman times are really just a fault of the representation given by these maps.
By grouping Germanic peoples/Celts/gauls and so on instead of showing their individual tribes (which also often faught amongst eachother.) and not giving them clear boundaries between the larger cultural groupings -> so you don't see the wars and raids between Germanic peoples and gauls or Celts for example.
This gives a really twisted view of reality showing more peace than there actually was.
But since these cultures didn't write stuff down, and this also requires a lot of research, I don't fault the creator, I think they already did an amazing job.
But there are definitely a lot more faults with this representation than I've just described.
Oh also please, the Romans and Suevi later are reported to fight the Huns together as a way for these Suevi and many other tribes from that original location where the Huns invaded initially, so they could return to their homelands (creating many of the countries that sprung up there later, as well as assimilating into other countries as local populations)
And this also provided a buffer zone for Romans (Byzantium)
I hope this and the answer above helped with your question at the end
It is actually called "Heiliges Römische Reich deutscher Nation" ("Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation")
I have always been confused about the English name; in Finnish we also have the German-factor as ”Pyhä saksalais-roomalainen keisarikunta”. (saxon -> saksa).
in Portuguese, we also have the German factor ("Sacro Império Romano-Germânico")
Since Charlemagne, the realm was merely referred to as the Roman Empire. The term _sacrum_ ("holy", in the sense of "consecrated") in connection with the medieval Roman Empire was used beginning in 1157 under Frederick I Barbarossa ("Holy Empire"). The term was added to reflect Frederick's ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy. The form "Holy Roman Empire" is attested from 1254 onward.
The exact term "Holy Roman Empire" was not used until the 13th century, before which the empire was referred to variously as _universum regnum_ ("the whole kingdom", as opposed to the regional kingdoms), _imperium christianum_ ("Christian empire"), or _Romanum imperium_ ("Roman empire"), but the Emperor's legitimacy always rested on the concept of _translatio imperii_ -- that he held supreme power inherited from the ancient emperors of Rome.
In a decree following the Diet of Cologne in 1512, the name was changed to the *Holy Roman Empire of the Germanic Nation* (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicae), a form first used in a document in 1474. The adoption of this new name coincided with the loss of imperial territories in Italy and Burgundy to the south and west by the late 15th century, but also to emphasize the new importance of the German Imperial Estates in ruling the Empire due to the Imperial Reform.
@@berlindude75 The addition was even barely used and also only for 70 years. Later it was prussia that pushed the "german nation" thing.
For the majority of its lifetime it wasn't called that.
it cannot be overstated just how valuable and worthwhile the EU really is.
Theres lots of work still to do, yes. But the EU has brought so much growth, stability and strength in our economies and countries.
Its a thing of beauty and she needs to be protected from nationalist fools at all costs!
The Mediterranian sea was the main transport route.
It seems that the video counted HRE as a bloc, and not as a sclerotic power as it was. From 13th century, France already had a larger population than HRE, If we count the fact that the Royal Capetian Domain was larger than that of the Emperor.
More like the Gaul's resisted before Rome connected to spain
Gauls were respected by the early Romans (Brennus had an impact on them). They had strong connexions in term of deals and Rome was a Repuplic so they had to make a casus belli to war against Gauls. Also Alps and Pyrenean mountains are a natural border to the Italian and Spanish peninsulas preventing a major invasion.
But let's be honest. Gauls resisted just a few years during Julius Caesar campaign. Allobroges were previously destroyed by the Romans with a stupid move, not waiting for their allies (Arvernes) and became Romes subjects from the Narbonese province.
@@LoMulticard Caesar didnt exactly stroll over the gauls to be fair but yes he was a smart tactician if a cruel one
@@LynxLord1991 yes Caesar suffered a defeat at Gergovie and the whole campaign wasn't easy but it was such a succesfull Campaign for him that he went from a respected General to the major character from Rome still remembered nowadays.
Vercingetorix did well. But the Gauls were not united and couldn't compare with Roman legions. Facts that the war itself took not so long for them to conquer Gaul's land from their pre established province to the rhein river
@@LynxLord1991 8 years war. Without Julius Caesar's report on it we barely knowes a few Gaulic tributes existence
@@LoMulticard True while I doubt Caesar's accounts are completely true.
1:20 there's too little information, there weren't that civilazed, and of course they were later conquered by roman empire, but you can look up the equipment and some other stuff
Wow this has so many mistakes and I am only highly educated in Balkan region... it hurts my brain. I do not even know where to start...
Please, start from the earliest mistake in time.