I honour what you have done to overcome your discomfort with these more discursive episodes. For the listener they remind us that there is an implicit armature for our thinking, and in so doing provoke us to new perspectives. For the naïfs like me it places familiar episodes in a context that gives them new meaning, new interest and new vividness and I would like to thank you.
great stuff. you're on a roll ! minor criticism: microphone needs more gain/volume. also needs some tone control to soften the high frequencies (letter S is very shrill). if you're not sure how to sort it, just reach out.
Great video lecture and I agree with basically everything you covered, with the one exception that I think it's perhaps debatable that the Komnenian Dynasty was the "greatest" imperial house of Byzantium / Eastern Rome considering the accomplishments of Basil the Macedonian and the dynasty he was the founder and original patriarch of (with the caveat that some argue that his son Leo was actually the son of Michael III of the Amorian Dynasty, but I think the jury is still out on that). Despite that I think you're spot on especially since some tend to associate the Emperor Heraclius with the beginning of the Byzantine Era, which I always thought was rather arbitrary considering that one of the main arguments I've heard to affirm such a sentiment was the mistaken belief he officially changed the language from Latin to Greek, when that wasn't necessarily a formal change but more so one done on an ad hoc basis due to the practical reality of governing an empire that was territorially reduced and culturally homogenized after the chaos of the great wars of the 7th century. Much appreciated.
Loved this video. I’ve watched a lot of your video’s and nearly all of the livestreams over the last couple of weeks/months. Thank you and all of your co-hosts over the series for the hard work and dedication that goes into the research.
Enjoyable talk AM. I appreciate the deeper context given to Diocletian's role, as someone with a rather surface level understanding of Roman history. The usual low resolution summary of Diocletian as "made everyone refer to him as a slave does to a master, and then grew vegetables" has always been very unhelpful.
One could name these periods after seminal figures: Founding Period - Brutan Period Expansive Period - Scipian Period Dissolution Period - Caesarian Period Principate Period - Augustan Period Pax Romana Period - Hadrianic Period Tetrachic Period - Diocletian Period West Barbaric Kingdoms - Theodoric Period Frankish Empire - Caroline Period East Byzantium Period - Justinian Period Orthodox Period - Leonine Period
I find the western distinction between the direct legal succession of an empire, and its general territorial, cultural or population continuity very interesting. In China or Persia, particularly as the west sees it, the continuity stands to impress; whether its the Yuan or Ming or Qing, it is China. We do not think this way; whether it is the Goths or Franks or Germans (post-Ottonian empire), it is not Rome. I cannot help but believe that if Emperor Charles I's realm had remained united, or if Emperor Charles V's many realms had been united, that the continuity and unity of the Roman Empire to at least their own times would be certain and not disputed by later historians. Gibbon is really the first historian to explain why the Emperor of Germany wasn't Augustus' heir, and he explains this less than 50yrs before there is no longer an Emperor of Germany. It seems all notions of 'Europeans' & 'European' history, or 'white' as another example, are a way around terming what is in essence the Roman people, and their Roman history. If the Greeks after the 15th ct were still Romans, we too are Romans even now.
For me the periods of Roman history on the macro-level are: Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire. I understand on the micro-level there are different catagories such as how the Triumvirate is different to the Dictatorship which is different to the Emperorship. More Roman history please AM. P.S., The Antonines were a golden age.
Very much enjoyed this, and found it quite interesting. I personally disagree slightly about the end of the Republic. I'm even more pessimistic and would say that Sulla dealt its fatal wound, though it managed to limp on just a little bit longer.
What would be interesting is how what Vispasian and his son Titus did in Palestine has a link to what is happening today in that region, I'm lead to believe that as well as looting then pulling down the second temple Titus also exiled the jews that didn't renounce their faith to in favour of Roman religion while those who stayed became today's Muslim worshipping Palestinians, is it true that both people share Semite ancestry?
It's an interesting theory I have heard it before, however, I have not heard any satisfactory proof of modern palestinians being descended from the judeans of old. We do know for a fact that there have been several groups of people move through the area since the first century.
I agree, in that you have brought out, educere, the inescapable variety of analysis. Gibbons et al, all accounts, research, amateur and academic scholarship informs us, each illuminating their line of sight. Having understood that, our own mind is relieved of the struggle to determine the gold medallist and turns back to regard the whole subject with serene curiosity. This is real scholarship, from seed and root to flower and fruit. By contrast, parachute hither and thither for the sake of establishing a thesis although, even that is not useless similar to the broader understanding that dawns from finding out about your great grandparents.
People in the future will look back at America’s era, and deem it a golden era. A nation so powerful that all other nations wouldn’t dare challenge directly. An era of relative peace, bloodless when compared to the era before America’s hegemony. A nation so righteous, that it could only end up on the right side. It could never side with tyranny unless it overlord over tyranny. An evil, but necessary to maintain global peace.
As wasn't the Roman Empire when it achieved world domination. Actually it was probably worse. So yeah OP has a great point, although personally I do think America could be remembered far worse than Rome, even after a long time will have passed.
@@gch8810 sure, america is not, but america is so entrenched in its self-righteousness that in the end, America could only end up on the righteous path. Think ab it, could America and normal Americans could ever go along and support nazi Germany? Never! If it wasn’t for America’s perceived righteousness, the whole world would have been covered with dictators and famine. It is only because of the US navy that modern globalism could exist.
@@gch8810It depends on your perspective. As someone raised in America and is relatively conservative socially (but open to the fact that my perspective isn't by any stretch the mainstream and inclined to hear out even those who would disagree with me the most) I would say from my vantage point and that of many around me that America for all its very real shortcomings has been a righteous force at least when it comes to my ancestors over in Korea and for those such as my adopted family who are of Irish and Italian stock. There are, of course, plenty of reasons if you're from a different part of the world, especially one which has been on the receiving end of the vices and/or excesses of American hegemony that you would hate or at least think what you said about America being not all its cracked up to be. That's what makes it and former great, imperial powers such as Rome so fascinating. Rome has definitely cast a longer, more influential shadow in the world considering that America is a fairly new country all things considered, but I think the comparison is worthwhile in certain aspects as for better and worse we are still living in the waning days of the American world order that has been the way of doing things ever since 1945.
If you enjoyed this video, please like and leave a comment. It helps the channel a lot. Many thanks.
I was just thinking about the roman empire
Gosh, me too actually!
I honour what you have done to overcome your discomfort with these more discursive episodes. For the listener they remind us that there is an implicit armature for our thinking, and in so doing provoke us to new perspectives. For the naïfs like me it places familiar episodes in a context that gives them new meaning, new interest and new vividness and I would like to thank you.
Friends, don’t forget we have an AM fanclub server. Come join us:
discord.gg/QDsfcPsk
great stuff. you're on a roll !
minor criticism: microphone needs more gain/volume. also needs some tone control to soften the high frequencies (letter S is very shrill). if you're not sure how to sort it, just reach out.
Great video as always AM, I'll check out your video on Britain.
A most interesting talk.
Forsooth, Duke.
Great video lecture and I agree with basically everything you covered, with the one exception that I think it's perhaps debatable that the Komnenian Dynasty was the "greatest" imperial house of Byzantium / Eastern Rome considering the accomplishments of Basil the Macedonian and the dynasty he was the founder and original patriarch of (with the caveat that some argue that his son Leo was actually the son of Michael III of the Amorian Dynasty, but I think the jury is still out on that).
Despite that I think you're spot on especially since some tend to associate the Emperor Heraclius with the beginning of the Byzantine Era, which I always thought was rather arbitrary considering that one of the main arguments I've heard to affirm such a sentiment was the mistaken belief he officially changed the language from Latin to Greek, when that wasn't necessarily a formal change but more so one done on an ad hoc basis due to the practical reality of governing an empire that was territorially reduced and culturally homogenized after the chaos of the great wars of the 7th century. Much appreciated.
Loved this video. I’ve watched a lot of your video’s and nearly all of the livestreams over the last couple of weeks/months. Thank you and all of your co-hosts over the series for the hard work and dedication that goes into the research.
Thanks for this 'macro' view from the summit. Enlightening, as I've come to expect from you.
Thank you. Very interesting.
Man I really do love your channel, I fall sleep every night listening to your livestreams 😂
Enjoyable talk AM.
I appreciate the deeper context given to Diocletian's role, as someone with a rather surface level understanding of Roman history. The usual low resolution summary of Diocletian as "made everyone refer to him as a slave does to a master, and then grew vegetables" has always been very unhelpful.
One could name these periods after seminal figures:
Founding Period - Brutan Period
Expansive Period - Scipian Period
Dissolution Period - Caesarian Period
Principate Period - Augustan Period
Pax Romana Period - Hadrianic Period
Tetrachic Period - Diocletian Period
West
Barbaric Kingdoms - Theodoric Period
Frankish Empire - Caroline Period
East
Byzantium Period - Justinian Period
Orthodox Period - Leonine Period
I find the western distinction between the direct legal succession of an empire, and its general territorial, cultural or population continuity very interesting.
In China or Persia, particularly as the west sees it, the continuity stands to impress; whether its the Yuan or Ming or Qing, it is China. We do not think this way; whether it is the Goths or Franks or Germans (post-Ottonian empire), it is not Rome.
I cannot help but believe that if Emperor Charles I's realm had remained united, or if Emperor Charles V's many realms had been united, that the continuity and unity of the Roman Empire to at least their own times would be certain and not disputed by later historians.
Gibbon is really the first historian to explain why the Emperor of Germany wasn't Augustus' heir, and he explains this less than 50yrs before there is no longer an Emperor of Germany.
It seems all notions of 'Europeans' & 'European' history, or 'white' as another example, are a way around terming what is in essence the Roman people, and their Roman history. If the Greeks after the 15th ct were still Romans, we too are Romans even now.
For me the periods of Roman history on the macro-level are: Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire. I understand on the micro-level there are different catagories such as how the Triumvirate is different to the Dictatorship which is different to the Emperorship. More Roman history please AM. P.S., The Antonines were a golden age.
I’m loving these more contemplative videos.
Great to have this extended overview
If you could add emoji's so i can understand..
Could you recommend what you find to be the best roman history books in your opinion?
I tried to get an AI to write a comment commenting on algorithmic commenting, but it got confused, so I'll just post this.
Very much enjoyed this, and found it quite interesting. I personally disagree slightly about the end of the Republic. I'm even more pessimistic and would say that Sulla dealt its fatal wound, though it managed to limp on just a little bit longer.
Why were there no British Roman senators despite occupying that area for a long time?
Latent anti brittonic racism and cultural anti celtic prejudices. Romans were also fearful of British swamps, really the swamps under Rome…
What would be interesting is how what Vispasian and his son Titus did in Palestine has a link to what is happening today in that region, I'm lead to believe that as well as looting then pulling down the second temple Titus also exiled the jews that didn't renounce their faith to in favour of Roman religion while those who stayed became today's Muslim worshipping Palestinians, is it true that both people share Semite ancestry?
I believe many do except for some European Jews. Same with many Christians in the region.
It's an interesting theory I have heard it before, however, I have not heard any satisfactory proof of modern palestinians being descended from the judeans of old. We do know for a fact that there have been several groups of people move through the area since the first century.
Excellent.
Thank you. Please keep up the series, its a pleasure to hear.
Fantastic video.
great
I agree, in that you have brought out, educere, the inescapable variety of analysis. Gibbons et al, all accounts, research, amateur and academic scholarship informs us, each illuminating their line of sight.
Having understood that, our own mind is relieved of the struggle to determine the gold medallist and turns back to regard the whole subject with serene curiosity.
This is real scholarship, from seed and root to flower and fruit. By contrast, parachute hither and thither for the sake of establishing a thesis although, even that is not useless similar to the broader understanding that dawns from finding out about your great grandparents.
I always value your reflections AM.
22:03
Its never simple
Gallic empire best empire
👍👍👍👍👍👏👏👏👏👏
People in the future will look back at America’s era, and deem it a golden era. A nation so powerful that all other nations wouldn’t dare challenge directly. An era of relative peace, bloodless when compared to the era before America’s hegemony. A nation so righteous, that it could only end up on the right side. It could never side with tyranny unless it overlord over tyranny. An evil, but necessary to maintain global peace.
Is this sarcasm? America is not righteous in the slightest.
As wasn't the Roman Empire when it achieved world domination. Actually it was probably worse. So yeah OP has a great point, although personally I do think America could be remembered far worse than Rome, even after a long time will have passed.
@@gch8810 sure, america is not, but america is so entrenched in its self-righteousness that in the end, America could only end up on the righteous path. Think ab it, could America and normal Americans could ever go along and support nazi Germany? Never! If it wasn’t for America’s perceived righteousness, the whole world would have been covered with dictators and famine. It is only because of the US navy that modern globalism could exist.
@@gch8810It depends on your perspective. As someone raised in America and is relatively conservative socially (but open to the fact that my perspective isn't by any stretch the mainstream and inclined to hear out even those who would disagree with me the most) I would say from my vantage point and that of many around me that America for all its very real shortcomings has been a righteous force at least when it comes to my ancestors over in Korea and for those such as my adopted family who are of Irish and Italian stock.
There are, of course, plenty of reasons if you're from a different part of the world, especially one which has been on the receiving end of the vices and/or excesses of American hegemony that you would hate or at least think what you said about America being not all its cracked up to be. That's what makes it and former great, imperial powers such as Rome so fascinating.
Rome has definitely cast a longer, more influential shadow in the world considering that America is a fairly new country all things considered, but I think the comparison is worthwhile in certain aspects as for better and worse we are still living in the waning days of the American world order that has been the way of doing things ever since 1945.
The dream that was America died in 1789.