"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages."
I think Constantius II is pretty underrated : he run the empire between some usurpers and his brothers, he managed battles against barbarian and the sassanid (not always well) and he avoid a new civil war confirming Julian his successor near his dead
I agree. He was careful which led him to avoid decisive actions. That way he did not really succeed nor fail like some of these who came before and after him. This lack of spectacular event left him pretty unremarquable
@@Boo-lr8fj I like Julian's story but I would go for a pyrrhic victory for Constantius. He was more experienced overall be it politics, diplomacy and warfare. And he was used to fighting usurpers
@@Boo-lr8fjfully certain Constantius II would win, Julian proved himself capable to defend the border, but thats not something an average military roman Emperor couldnt do, only exceptions lost to Barbarians. Constantius basically fought everyone including a war within against the Nikean creed... and was winning, i think he might have even spared Julian knowing his age was catching up to him and he litteraly had no other potential heir since "he" ordered the rest of his familly massacred, someone who truly wanted to fight Julian wouldnt have named him heir in spite of their differances
@@AntonioBrandao Indeed, this man is incredibly interesting even with such a short rule. History may have taken a very different path would he have lived longer
@@ancientsight just imagine what difference it would make in human affairs if his edict of religious tolerance would have stayed in place for the following centuries! ❤️
I like the fact you use coin portraits in your maps. Good video pal! Just one thing: the statue you used in this video's preview does not depict Julianus, but rather a priest of Serapis from Hadrian's time. There are no surely identified sculptures of Julianus - our monetary portraits are our best bet.
Loving all your videos on the late antiquity. I'm actually reading Ammianus Marcellinus and Procopius right now and these act as a great refresher/explainer/accompaniment to those books. There is so much going on at this time and you have already clocked through over 200 years. Any chance you are going to take a breather and deep dive more into the fall of the Roman Empire before you start veering more in to the Byzantine Empire? Would love to see some videos on that period before you do. Thanks for amazing work!
Great to read that ! I will soon start to upload standalone episodes in parallel to the late roman/byzantine series. So yes, you can expect more on the fall of Rome in the future
0:30 oh oh, the Ghassanids appeared in the 6th century. At the time it was the Tanukhids who were the vassals of the Romans and their settlements were between Aleppo and Damascus. otherwise great video.
Julian was more competent than Theodosius who relied on barbarian generals and fractured imperial territorial integrity but is condemned in history. When fanaticism overtakes capability, Rome deserved to fall.
Odd thing to compare those two on, given the fact that military accomplishment is the one major thing where Theodosius outshines Julian, and by far. Julian's most important military feat was definitely his victory against the franks which earned him the supposed of the army. This support quickly faded by the time of the sasanid campaigns that were, in all honesty, awfully planned and executed. Theodosius was a competent acomplished general prior to being emperor (and the son of another great general), which, lile Julian, granted him the imperial title. He stabilised the empire after the disaster that was Adrianople and the two large scale civil wars resulted by the usurpations of Magnus Maximus and Eugenius. His decision to further integrate federated barbarian troops into his army (which wasn't new by his time) might have paved the way for the future independent germanic kingdoms, but at the time, it was a brilliant diplomatic and strategic manoeuvre. These two emperors are very controversial for their respective religious policies, but to objectively compare them military wise we must detach ourselves from that bias.
Julian didn’t become empouer when there were gothic hordes roaming the Balkans and had no army at his disposal. We may look at theodosius choices of allow them to be fedoraii but he really didn’t have a choice.
Julian did persecute Christians though, among those martyred by him are Bishop Basil of Ancyra, Bishop Donatus of Arezzo, the hermit Hilarinus, the magistrate Gordian, the general Artemius, Emilianus, Domitius, the senator Elpidius, Marcellus, Eustochius, and many others in Palestine, Alexandria, and Arethusa.
It does not seem that Julian ordered these persecutions himself, it was more of a mob driven movement. Still, I could definitely have mentioned it since it happened under Julian
@@AGPArchivist Well given that a lot of these events was documented and preserved through time by the church one must take into consideration the motivation and objectivity of the authors. Julian was a pagan and was pushing back against the domination of Christianity over the Roman state. As Roman emperor, would you tolerate some flippant bishops mouthing off about you and stirring up potential unrest or risk them supporting pretenders. Simple fact is we dont know specifically what they were prosecuted for apart from Christians claiming it was for their beliefs. Since Julian already decreed the policy of religious toleration, it would be hard to believe he would then go after the likes of Basil or Donatus without them committing other offenses. It also speaks volume of the Christians motives to OPPOSE religious toleration, seemed like they cared more about the their ecclesiastical monopoly. One would also question the accuracy given that writers in writing these account claimed Bishop Donatus of Arezzo revived a dead woman, slew a dragon and restored sight.
Knowing after the fact, Julian should have given Jovian command of the East to defend against the Persians, not to invade, while he should have protected the West. I noticed too that being Christian didn't stop the Constantine brothers from killing each other off. Gods And Legions: A Novel of the Roman Empire by Michael Curtis Ford, featured Julian. I thought it was good.
True, he was excellente emperor, well educated, intelligent, charismatic and fine military comander. Problem was his aversion for Christians. He wanted to restore paganism, in that time period unrealistic politics. He should have been more pragmatic like Konstantin or Theodosius.
@@antoniogrgic3608 I politely disagree, it was realistic and desirable. He simply died too soon and did not have a solid succession plan to carry on his legacy.
@@AA-bn7tf He was not the first persecutor od Christians, it was futile as it was before. In Julian rain half population were Christians. The did wickend the empire but it wasnt the main reason of decline. Julian was opsest with old days and golden era of pagan empire. I am not an advocat of Cristians and i am catolic myself but they were untolerant toward pagans and they were disobedience to Roman laws.
Hail the old gods?? Where are they when Julian, their greatest champion died due to a freak javelin? Where are they when pagan Rome made last stand in the banks of frigidas river? They don't exist fam, simply they don't
@@chakraborty1989 the gods are eternal immortal beings they dont need us it us that need them, julian was trying to make the relgion dominant again, but like all things touched by man soon become corrupted, roman greco polytheism still surrvived and is practiced by thousands of people, a much smaller amount of people, maybe the gods wanted quality followers over quantity.
@@chakraborty1989 Where was the Christian god during the siege of Constantinople or the Viking raids? Where was Allah during the sack of Baghdad? There are no gods, just people.
Julian failed to realise that Christianity helped to centralise the Empire and to spread Romanitas to the people of the countryside. Even the Constantinian dynasty he was part of, was originally descendants of the Thracian tribe of Moesi, but he was a Roman with Greek habits thanks to the spread of Christianity to his family.
Indeed. Trying to halt what was at this point a sharp decline in paganism would have caused him more enemies than friends, even more now that Christianity was on the rise and half of the population
Isn't the idea of pagan vs Christian a bit daft in general no 1 took the myths seriously you could have 2 pagan faiths are different from each other as a Christian and a German polythiest who worships the odinic pantheon. Neo platonists are polythiests yeah but they are closer to Christians in that the gods are super essential beings who are the foundations of good Ness and strict heaven and hell system the idea that goodness is a aspect inherent in gods and they are not capable of evil at the same time they worship multiple gods they disagree on the salvation doctrine of the Christians. Better comparison is the pan deism of the philophers in ancient Greece compared to the panen thiesm of the neo platonists. I think if other religious traditions didn't die out you would see crusades against other forms of faiths.
He’s a cool emperor but boy is he overrated. If it weren’t for his religious beliefs he’d have slipped through the cracks of the average history fan. I only say that because the length of his reign.
@Roman Emperor Lucius Domitus Aurelianus anyone who’s more famous for being contrary than they were accomplished I think presents an argument for being overrated. He arguably picked a poor time to turn back Christianity.
@@rockstar450 true, he didn't seize the lands of the church and redistribute it among pagans, the economics of conversion still remained in favour of xtianity. Xtianity simply provided services to poor and destitute that weren't given by the State. In reality it was pure economics and materialism driving christianity in Roman Empire, and not some Divine heavenly power .
The philosopher? Good lord his antics were quite damaging to philosophy considering that they made Christians even more inclined to destroy old philosophical works.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages."
It fits well with the character indeed
I think Constantius II is pretty underrated : he run the empire between some usurpers and his brothers, he managed battles against barbarian and the sassanid (not always well) and he avoid a new civil war confirming Julian his successor near his dead
I agree. He was careful which led him to avoid decisive actions. That way he did not really succeed nor fail like some of these who came before and after him. This lack of spectacular event left him pretty unremarquable
@@ancientsight I have a Question. In your Opinion, who do you think would win in a battle between Julian the Apostate and Constantius II?
@@Boo-lr8fj I like Julian's story but I would go for a pyrrhic victory for Constantius. He was more experienced overall be it politics, diplomacy and warfare. And he was used to fighting usurpers
@@Boo-lr8fjfully certain Constantius II would win, Julian proved himself capable to defend the border, but thats not something an average military roman Emperor couldnt do, only exceptions lost to Barbarians.
Constantius basically fought everyone including a war within against the Nikean creed... and was winning, i think he might have even spared Julian knowing his age was catching up to him and he litteraly had no other potential heir since "he" ordered the rest of his familly massacred, someone who truly wanted to fight Julian wouldnt have named him heir in spite of their differances
No one I ever wished had more success.
Julian or my channel ? :)
@@ancientsight Julian. Your channel will be successful for sure! :)
@@AntonioBrandao Indeed, this man is incredibly interesting even with such a short rule. History may have taken a very different path would he have lived longer
@@ancientsight just imagine what difference it would make in human affairs if his edict of religious tolerance would have stayed in place for the following centuries! ❤️
@@AntonioBrandaoTell us why?
I like the fact you use coin portraits in your maps. Good video pal! Just one thing: the statue you used in this video's preview does not depict Julianus, but rather a priest of Serapis from Hadrian's time. There are no surely identified sculptures of Julianus - our monetary portraits are our best bet.
I didn't know about that, thanks for your comment
la qualité est top, n’arrête pas 👍👍👍
Merci beaucoup ça fait plaisir
Loving all your videos on the late antiquity. I'm actually reading Ammianus Marcellinus and Procopius right now and these act as a great refresher/explainer/accompaniment to those books. There is so much going on at this time and you have already clocked through over 200 years. Any chance you are going to take a breather and deep dive more into the fall of the Roman Empire before you start veering more in to the Byzantine Empire? Would love to see some videos on that period before you do. Thanks for amazing work!
Great to read that ! I will soon start to upload standalone episodes in parallel to the late roman/byzantine series. So yes, you can expect more on the fall of Rome in the future
Toujours une aussi bonne qualité, c'est formidable
Merci c'est cool
incredible video!
Well done, good pace and good explanations. Keep it up !
Great job👍👍👍
Thank you
Nice, subbed
Welcome !
Tu es trop fort ! J'espère sincèrement que tu trouveras le public que ton travail mérite
Merci encore ! Oui c'est pas évident de grimper en visibilité au début mais je suis patient :)
0:30 oh oh, the Ghassanids appeared in the 6th century. At the time it was the Tanukhids who were the vassals of the Romans and their settlements were between Aleppo and Damascus. otherwise great video.
great work!
Ave
Julian was more competent than Theodosius who relied on barbarian generals and fractured imperial territorial integrity but is condemned in history. When fanaticism overtakes capability, Rome deserved to fall.
Odd thing to compare those two on, given the fact that military accomplishment is the one major thing where Theodosius outshines Julian, and by far.
Julian's most important military feat was definitely his victory against the franks which earned him the supposed of the army. This support quickly faded by the time of the sasanid campaigns that were, in all honesty, awfully planned and executed.
Theodosius was a competent acomplished general prior to being emperor (and the son of another great general), which, lile Julian, granted him the imperial title. He stabilised the empire after the disaster that was Adrianople and the two large scale civil wars resulted by the usurpations of Magnus Maximus and Eugenius.
His decision to further integrate federated barbarian troops into his army (which wasn't new by his time) might have paved the way for the future independent germanic kingdoms, but at the time, it was a brilliant diplomatic and strategic manoeuvre.
These two emperors are very controversial for their respective religious policies, but to objectively compare them military wise we must detach ourselves from that bias.
Like today, USA empire crumbling under Joe Biden and Kamala...
Julian didn’t become empouer when there were gothic hordes roaming the Balkans and had no army at his disposal. We may look at theodosius choices of allow them to be fedoraii but he really didn’t have a choice.
Fostering inter-religious conflicts is a sign of competence?
Julian's horrible Persian campaign lead to a bad peace treaty
Great Video! This chanel is so underrated. Are you going to follow this series on the Classical Roman empire with the medieval one?
Thank you and yes, the series will continue with eastern rome
Julian did persecute Christians though, among those martyred by him are Bishop Basil of Ancyra, Bishop Donatus of Arezzo, the hermit Hilarinus, the magistrate Gordian, the general Artemius, Emilianus, Domitius, the senator Elpidius, Marcellus, Eustochius, and many others in Palestine, Alexandria, and Arethusa.
It does not seem that Julian ordered these persecutions himself, it was more of a mob driven movement. Still, I could definitely have mentioned it since it happened under Julian
@@ancientsight Julian personally examined Basil and had him tortured to death for his faith, afaik he ordered several other martyrdoms too
@@AGPArchivist Church propaganda
@@rishavkumar1250 if you say so.
@@AGPArchivist Well given that a lot of these events was documented and preserved through time by the church one must take into consideration the motivation and objectivity of the authors. Julian was a pagan and was pushing back against the domination of Christianity over the Roman state. As Roman emperor, would you tolerate some flippant bishops mouthing off about you and stirring up potential unrest or risk them supporting pretenders. Simple fact is we dont know specifically what they were prosecuted for apart from Christians claiming it was for their beliefs. Since Julian already decreed the policy of religious toleration, it would be hard to believe he would then go after the likes of Basil or Donatus without them committing other offenses. It also speaks volume of the Christians motives to OPPOSE religious toleration, seemed like they cared more about the their ecclesiastical monopoly. One would also question the accuracy given that writers in writing these account claimed Bishop Donatus of Arezzo revived a dead woman, slew a dragon and restored sight.
Julian be like: “Time to fight a battle without a chest plate!”
I guess there was no time for him to put on his armour, as the troops needed their emperor but still charging into battle like that was way to risky
Knowing after the fact, Julian should have given Jovian command of the East to defend against the Persians, not to invade, while he should have protected the West. I noticed too that being Christian didn't stop the Constantine brothers from killing each other off. Gods And Legions: A Novel of the Roman Empire by Michael Curtis Ford, featured Julian. I thought it was good.
Before dying, Emperor Julian allegedly said “You have won, the Galilean”
Really wish Julian could have lived to fully enact his ideas.
True, he was excellente emperor, well educated, intelligent, charismatic and fine military comander. Problem was his aversion for Christians. He wanted to restore paganism, in that time period unrealistic politics. He should have been more pragmatic like Konstantin or Theodosius.
@@antoniogrgic3608 I politely disagree, it was realistic and desirable. He simply died too soon and did not have a solid succession plan to carry on his legacy.
@@AA-bn7tf He was not the first persecutor od Christians, it was futile as it was before. In Julian rain half population were Christians. The did wickend the empire but it wasnt the main reason of decline. Julian was opsest with old days and golden era of pagan empire. I am not an advocat of Cristians and i am catolic myself but they were untolerant toward pagans and they were disobedience to Roman laws.
@@AA-bn7tf Desirable by who?
@@AA-bn7tfWhere did that spear come from? Don't assume it wasn't a Roman.
Hail the old gods, and may Julian smile from the fields of Elysium on those who still walk the old path
Hail the old gods??
Where are they when Julian, their greatest champion died due to a freak javelin?
Where are they when pagan Rome made last stand in the banks of frigidas river?
They don't exist fam, simply they don't
@@chakraborty1989 the gods are eternal immortal beings they dont need us it us that need them, julian was trying to make the relgion dominant again, but like all things touched by man soon become corrupted, roman greco polytheism still surrvived and is practiced by thousands of people, a much smaller amount of people, maybe the gods wanted quality followers over quantity.
@@chakraborty1989 Where was the Christian god during the siege of Constantinople or the Viking raids? Where was Allah during the sack of Baghdad? There are no gods, just people.
Christ is King
@@goodbanter4427 a king
Julian failed to realise that Christianity helped to centralise the Empire and to spread Romanitas to the people of the countryside. Even the Constantinian dynasty he was part of, was originally descendants of the Thracian tribe of Moesi, but he was a Roman with Greek habits thanks to the spread of Christianity to his family.
Indeed. Trying to halt what was at this point a sharp decline in paganism would have caused him more enemies than friends, even more now that Christianity was on the rise and half of the population
*brain aneurysm intensified
Viminacium, danas,Kostolac,Srbija;pozdrav ❤
Saint Mercurius, the Apostates Slayer, pray for us and our salvation, now and forever, amin!
19:10 and the worse was soon to come. Yep the Huns
Julian The Great
*Julian the Chaos Bringer
More like the short reigned
Julian the redditor
Julian the neckbeard
Glory to Our Great Lord Julian Σωτήρ!
Julian the great
Cringe
Isn't the idea of pagan vs Christian a bit daft in general no 1 took the myths seriously you could have 2 pagan faiths are different from each other as a Christian and a German polythiest who worships the odinic pantheon.
Neo platonists are polythiests yeah but they are closer to Christians in that the gods are super essential beings who are the foundations of good Ness and strict heaven and hell system the idea that goodness is a aspect inherent in gods and they are not capable of evil at the same time they worship multiple gods they disagree on the salvation doctrine of the Christians.
Better comparison is the pan deism of the philophers in ancient Greece compared to the panen thiesm of the neo platonists.
I think if other religious traditions didn't die out you would see crusades against other forms of faiths.
I made a little dark age video about me check it out 😉
Julian the saviour .. bad luck died so early
It's just shows that being a despotic anti-Christian madman doesn't work.
He’s a cool emperor but boy is he overrated. If it weren’t for his religious beliefs he’d have slipped through the cracks of the average history fan. I only say that because the length of his reign.
Yes I think "cool" is the word. While his reign is not that spectacular, his life surely is
@@ancientsight well said
@Roman Emperor Lucius Domitus Aurelianus anyone who’s more famous for being contrary than they were accomplished I think presents an argument for being overrated. He arguably picked a poor time to turn back Christianity.
@@rockstar450 Well even Theodosius or Justinian are overrated In that sense
@@rockstar450 true, he didn't seize the lands of the church and redistribute it among pagans, the economics of conversion still remained in favour of xtianity.
Xtianity simply provided services to poor and destitute that weren't given by the State.
In reality it was pure economics and materialism driving christianity in Roman Empire, and not some Divine heavenly power .
The philosopher? Good lord his antics were quite damaging to philosophy considering that they made Christians even more inclined to destroy old philosophical works.
julian was right about everything
He was right about his failure to defeat Persia?
Julian the "Apostate" was the last true Philhellene Roman Emperor!