Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Why Rome Never Fell (Until the 19th Century)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 май 2024
- In this Questions in Church History video, we explore the historiographical opinion that Roman civilization did not fall until the 19th century...and that in the Roman Rite Church, it lives on.
I think you meant the 20th century, Blessed Charles of Austria, Ora Pro Nobis.
He only claimed to be Emperor of the Germans though, not of the Romans?
@@rx0102 He was Emperor of Austria-Hungry, which the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, but he may not have considered himself the Holy Roman Emperor. I'm not sure on that point.
@@St.DemetriostheMyrrhGusher Personally I agree that the Habsburg Dinasty carried the mantle of Roman Civilization until its deposition in 1918. It was only after WW1 that the throne of the Roman Emperor was definitively vacated.
Amen.
When the Austro-Hungarian empire ceased to claim to be the Holy Roman Empire in the early 19th century, that indicates that the last sense that European society was a continuation of Roman civilization had faded in favor of humanist-spawned ethnic societies. This is why I wrote 19th century and not 20th.
I've been enjoying this presentation. This is the history I was taught many, many years ago. Thank you.
Charles Coloumbe says that the later
French and English kings were at times HRE candidates. He names Henry VIII as one, indicating that all Christendom considered itself participating in the HRE.
Spain is not Controlled by the "ostrogoths " but the Visigoths
Thank you. I will make a correction of this point in a later video.
@@historiaecclesiasticacan you correct the part about how Rome nvr fell ‘until the 19th century’
Rome never fell
Certainly not as Daniel describes… not yet, anyway
@@RebelRampantbut the last empire will be a short one and that will be the coming of the anti christ. That would be after the fall of the second roman like empire. Interesting fact, the holy roman empire was made to fullfill this prophecy and to delay the anti christ. What do you think?
Ostro = Eastern
Visi = Western
Goths = German Tribes of barbarians
This channel makes great undertakings with a magnificent sweep through the history of the RC church, religion in general and history itself... Congratulations on your channel and the personal efforts to make your point...
Greek Orthodox Christian here. Veri interesting presentation. May I elaborate on some points?
10:38 you cite John 12:24 but the context is much more rich starting at the verse 20 : There were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the feast (_of easter_).
They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and requested of him, “Sir, we want to see Jesus.” Philip relayed this appeal to Andrew, and both of them went and told Jesus.
_This passage means : Philip and Andrew (Greek names) spoke some Greek because Bethsaida was a fisher port with a population of Greeks and hellenised Jews such as Philip, Andrew and Peter. In fact at that exact period the Bethsaida was promoted to the rank of Roman City and renamed Julia after the empress. It became the administrative center of the province and many hellenistic buildings were build._
Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a seed; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."
_Many Roman Catholic translations add a "But..." at the beginning of this verse that does not exist in the original Greek. They see a contradiction between the announcement of the Greeks and the answer of Christ. The orthodox Church teaches that there is no contradiction. The presence of those Greeks is what triggered the announcement of the Hour of Glory. The explanation is in the parable you separated from its context : "Truly, truly, I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a seed; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."
Jesus compares himself to a grain that falls to the ground. But in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13) He has already spoken about the importance of the soil. If the seed falls too soon, on the path, birds will eat it. If the soil is shallow, full of rocks or thorns the fruits will not grow well. What happened that made Jesus announce that the hour had come? The presence of the good soil he was waiting for : those Greeks._
Afterwards, it's obvious everywhere in the Gospel.
Galatians 3:28-29 : _There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus._
1 Corinthians 1:22 : _For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom._
Acts 18:4 _And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks._
1 Corinthians 10:32 : Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Greeks, nor to the church of God._
History proved Jesus to be right in His choice. Greeks were the fertile soil of the early Church.
This post is more than long enough. I will add more reflections in separate messages.
In the Bible Greek is an umbrella term for all gentiles (hellenes) and greek-speaking jews (hellenistai). For example, in Mark 7:26, the woman of Tyre is called a greek, and then right afterwards the texts says she was Syrophoenician. The word greek didn't necessarily mean hellenic people. Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Persians etc would all have been called Greek. Greek was the lingua franca at the time, kind of like English today. I have an english name and learned to speak english as a child, but I'm not english or american or from any other anglophone country. It's simply because anglo-saxon culture is very internationally-oriented nowadays. The same was true for Greece in the first century. The Bible tells us that all nations were called to believe and preach the gospel, and in Pentecost Peter preached to people from many different ethnicities and thousands converted. What the New Testament tells us is that Greeks (as in all gentiles) are the fertile soil of the Church, because the jews rejected Jesus. As John the Baptist says, God has the power to create sons of Abraham from a rock. Since the original sons of Abraham rejected the Christ, God made disciples of all nations. There is no Greek supremacy in the Bible.
@@edgarbergmann6581 You are just giving the definition of Hellenism. Hellen is not an ethnicity but a cultural definition. I never pretended that there was a Greek supremacy. You are thinking in Roman terms (imperialism). I think as a Greek (universalism). Greek does not mean Gentiles. It's a Roman Catholic distortion created to remove meaning from the word because you do not want to hear the part of Christ teachings that disturbs you worldview which is the continuation of the Roman empire. But Jesus was clear. The first in the church must not lord it over the Nations and call himself a benefactor to justify his dominance. On the contrary he must serve as a slave.
You are right when you say that the Roman Pontiff is the continuation of the Roman empire. The trouble is that this is why God will destroy Babylon (Rev. 17&18) and Babylon is Rome.
Lord have mercy.
@@Hope_Boat I never said the Roman Pontiff is the continuation of the roman empire and I never intended for greek supremacy to mean greek imperialism. All I meant to say is that the word Greek in the new testament was used to refer to any gentile. Or, sometimes, to jews who spoke greek as a second or first language, without necessarily being associated with greek culture or ethnicity. This is something pretty well established in Bible studies. The New Testament never implies that the hellenic world in specific would inherit the Kingdom of God, but all gentiles who accepted the word of Christ.
@@Hope_BoatIm really starting to dislike greeks. I saw another greek comment in a different video that people were converting to “his religion”. You said you didn’t intend any ethnocentrism but you seemed to imply that the greeks are the inheritors of the Kingdom which would disturb this man’s worldview. From my interactions with greeks you guys suggest that christianity is your ethnic religion and not for the rest of the world. Im a catechumen under Antioch and I have never heard any of them complaining that americans were joining “their religion”.
@@edgarbergmann6581 This is prety well established in Roman bible studies. In fact the roman bibles eradicated the word "Greek" in John 12:20 _Some Greeks... asked to see Jesus._ and was translated by _some gentiles... asked to see Jesus_
That's a forced translation and a falsification. Why? Because Rome wanted to get read of "the Greeks" after the constitution of a Pontifical State in 1050 by the German pope Leo IX.
Maybe YOU didn't say the Roman Pontiff is the continuation of the roman empire but Leo IX did. He claimed the roman imperial insignia for himself, established an assembly of cardinals dressed with the colors of the roman senate of old and appointed a state chancellor Humbert of Moyenmoutier.
He invaded Sicily with his imperial army in order to attack the Normans. Sicily was a Byzantine province still and he tried to force the bishops there to drop the Byzantine rite in favor of the latin one. Those bishops asked the Patriarch Michel of Constantinople what they should do and Michel told them to ignore the pope's demand.
This came to the ears of Leo IX who was infuriated and wrote a letter to Michel (we still have it) claiming universal juridiction over the entire Church based on the Donation of Constantine.
The Donation of Constantine is a forged imperial decree by which Constantine the Great allegedly transferred the imperial insignia to pope Sylvester. It was forged in order to justify the coronation of Charlemagne in 800AD.
Emperor Constantine never transferred political powers to the Church because it's heretical as Jesus explain in Luke 22:24+ : the first among the Chistians shall not lord it over the nations, pretending to be a benefactor, but rather wash their feet as the slaves did before a guest was allowed to enter their master's house.
Leo IX was a looser and was captured by the Normans anyways and then died and Humbert ruled the Pontifical State until a new Pope was elected in 1055. He went to Constantinople in order to receive official recognition of the newborn state by the eastern emperor and also delivered an insulting letter from (allegedly) the late pope in which Leo IX accused Michel to be a woman in drag. He also delivered an excommunication bull in which he accused "the Greeks" of removing the filioque from the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.
(among other stupidities)
That kick started the Gregorian reformation.
20 years later the ideas of Leo IX were published in Dictatus Papae. Among those it proclaimed :
That The Roman Pontiff alone can use the imperial insignia.
That all princes are to kiss the feet of the pope alone.
So yes. Rome is Babylon.
Why do you suddenly adopt the fake "CE" instead of "AD" at about 16:08? I thought you were trying to preserve the history of Christianity, not helping to erase if from human memory. Please fix your slide, and any others that use this insulting abbreviation. You actually use "AD" verbally!
C.E. Christian Era
B.C.E. Before Christian Era
@@Elsupermayan8870 That's a cope. The Gregorian Calendar uses BC and AD. Trying to change up the naming without actually changing the calendar is somewhat like plagiarism.
@@Elsupermayan8870C.E is Current Era, not Christian Era. 4:37 Same for B.C.E., Before Current Era.
@@thomasbell8163
There's nothing current about the year 1 C.E. as compared to today.
And for that matter, what's not current about the year 1B.C.E. to 1 C.E.?
Makes absolutely no sense.
I agree. The gregorians invented the calendar. To say that it's not correct and I'm going to be the guy to correct it...the audacity is too much to take. I would like to propose this. If you are a so called scholar that uses ce and bce you should have your acreddition stripped from you, and when you complain that it's not fair. Just simply tell these a hats that now they know what it feels like.
I like that Latin prayer at the beginning
This is the kind of content that should go viral. Amazing historical overview with great insights and conclusions, everyone should watch this video, especially all Christians.
Sadly this is not the impression that most history lessons at school will left you with.
I will add that after Napoleon dismantled the HRE, the rulers of Austria would preserve the title of Emperor, although it was mostly just symbolic (but I think they had some privileges of the Roman Emperors, like being named in liturgy and the right to objection of a papal candidate). This would finally end with the fall of Austria-Hungary in 1918.
This was an excellent presentation. Thank you. Can you make a follow up video exploring the possibility of the continuity of The Roman Empire as a hidden governing matrix? All commerce, international courts, and geopolitical relations seem to point to the continuity of Roman rule.
This is much needed. Any books to do further research into the history of the Roman Catholic Civilization?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et *Spiritus Sancti.
('Spiritui' is dative, and is the correct form for the 'Gloria Patri')
Great vid. This is the exact conclusion i came to after a thousand hours of EU4.
Now do one about how the Mayans and Aztecs didn't go anywhere and are still here
My EU4 theory is it carried through the Russians
Def a false equivalency
@@RebelRampant Most definitely.
@@2nd_ntr I guess not exact. I think every Western state and Russia are extensions of Rome. All of them fanboyed out over Rome when developing their governments
This is a very interesting video. As anyone, the more I learn about Rome I realize that Rome never fell in 475. It just morphed into its next stage as you say. And I also agree that today clearly Roman Civilization has fallen. Maybe that is why historians are so quick to pin 475 as the date, just to free themselves from the guilt of being a part of the civilization that actually killed Rome.
However I do not understand why you ascribe Napoleon as the one who killed Roman Civilization. Napoleon did end the HRE as an institution but that was simply because the HRE was weak. The HRE let itself be killed by being weak in the same way as the Roman Empire let itself be killed by the barbarians by being weak. Why don't you see Napoleon campaigns on Europe as the next stage of Roman Civilization?
If anything I would say that Napoleon reinvigorated the leaders of Roman Civilization who had all become weak and decadent. If they hadn't, how come one guy could have obliterated all of them in battle multiple times? I would say Napoleon simply led the beginning of a new stage.
I also think you should recognize the fault of the Pope too. Protestantism would have never rised if it had not been for the decadence of the Church at that time. In the same way that there would not have been a french revolution to empower Napoleon if the Church had helped the french peasants instead of sitting comfortably enjoying their privileges with the nobility. The Church has become decadent at multiple points in history at which point new institutions are created to fulfill the responsibilities that they neglect. The Church has forgotten their role in being a balance between the peasants and nobility? Then the peasants shall rise, align themselves with military commanders such as Napoleon, and then enshrine their protection through other means.
Some popes have been shit throughout history. If they had been better, history would have been different.
As a note but Napoleon VERY much so Rome larped. His son was the Rex Romanum (King of Rome), the Aquila he took from the Romans and he perceived himself as a new Ceasar of the West
Culture constantly changes. Religion, government, geography are the easiest indicators to define culture. I still believe the Judaeo/Roman conflict is alive today and can be used to define most of the above schisms in culture. Great presentation and I agree. Thank You!!!!!!🙏
Could you elaborate on that pervasive conflict? I’m rather interested as a Western historian.
@@PastPerspectives3 The Roman position during the empire was that a man can become a god emperor. The Judaeo perspective with the Essenes was that God became man to bring salvation. The Roman emperor was the “son of god” to the Romans. The Romans industrialized slavery and war to sustain their empire. The Essene Jews looked to God to bring His Kingdom to earth. Who is your King?Caesar vs Jesus Christ?
I appreciate that your solution in the end was very positive - that each of us can reclaim our heritage by coming back to the Eucharist in the parish down the street like the prodigal son. Many wish to reclaim aspects of heritage while rejecting where it came from, the very thing that made civilization. Whether societies traditions can be saved or whether they need to be created anew, the foundation for it, the Chief Corner Stone is absolutely necessary. Everything else is human effort.
How many families have so much trouble getting along but can come to a common love by taking the family pup for a walk? If an innocent dog can bring bickering people together, how much more is this the case when societies and individuals come together to love Christ in the Eucharist. As St John Bosco stated from his vision, the Church will pass through this storm only once it anchors its ship between the two pillars of devotion to the Eucharist and our Lady Help of Christians.
Well, a little reading of Juvenal shows that the modern West and the Rome of the Antonine emperors had some similarities.
I agree with the flaw that Rome fell. Don’t leave out The Donation of Constantine book by Lorenzo Valla 1439 and Germania by Tacitus 98 AD, discovered 1429, and probably need to prove Moses plus 600,000 warriors in Egypt was not allegory. You talked around it, the Reformation was a class war between common people and a ruling Roman senate class, as you say, it continued unabated to the 1500s, then Northern Europe (Protestants) defied the Roman Senate leading to a new senate class without border nor defining religion, but STILL about hording wealth, gold, silver, land, cheap labor etc. nothing like the Sermon on the Mount, oh well!
Eventhough the Roman Bishop took the Title „Pontifex Maximus“ the Western Empire died with the Takeover of Italy by the Lombards.
27:07 You said that the filioque was added to the creed in 589AD to combat Arianism. This is not true. The 3rd Council of Toledo was just a local council in Spain, not a western council. The Council was organized by Bishop Leander of Seville and the issue was the end of the schism between arians and trinitarians withing the visigothic (spanish) kingdom of King Reccared.
The council anathematized Arius and his doctrine, and declared his acceptance of the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, which by itself contradicts the addition of the filioque.
It also contradicted the previous creed established during the first council of toledo :
_5. Also the Spirit is the Paraclete, who himself is neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeds from the Father._
We can see that the Church of Spain used to profess the orthodox view.
The first attempt to add the filioque to the entire Western Church came in 810AD when Charlemagne send a delegation so saint pope of Rome Leo II.
Leo II explained that he had no such power and nailed two silver shields on the doors of his basilica with the unaltered text of the creed (without the filioque) in Greek and Laing and also this sentence :
I LEO DID THIS FOR THE SAKE AND LOVE OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH.
Orthodoxy is not a eastern practice. Rome was orthodox and the popes of Rome resisted to the Carolingian dynasty until the 8th ecumenical council of Constantinople in 882AD which anathematized anyone who dares to add or remove anything to or from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.
This ecumenical council was valdated by saint pope of Rome John VIII.
But someone was not pleased and saint John VIII was assassinated in 882AD with a hammer.
A war hammer. The German weapon of choice.
The filioque was weaponized by the German emperors in order to create a schism between Rome and "the Greeks" for political gains : a better control over the West.
Rome fell in chaos as Italians and Germans fought over the chair of Peter. After a rapid succession of popes (one per year) the counts of Tuscullum secured their grip on the papacy during a scandalous period known as the Rule of the Harlot (Pornocratia).
It lasted until 1014 when the last Tuscullum pope was expelled from Rome and seeked help from the German king Henry II who accepted, marched on Rome, reestablished the pope and in exchange imposed the filioque during his coronation as "Holy Roman Germanic" emperor on February 14 1014.
The German emperors started to impose German popes, the second one being the count Bruno von Eguisheim-Dagsbourg alias Leo IX who kickstarted the Gregorian Reformation, provoked the schism with the orthodox Church, claimed the imperial insignia for himself, established a assembly of cardinals wearing the imperial purple and scarlet of the roman senators and appointed a state chancellor : the infamour Humbert de Moyenmoutiers.
This was the beginning of the religion of salvation by submission to the Roman Pontiff and the end of the orthodox Rome.
you contradicted yourself in your first paragraph
@@Sicilianus I didn't. The local church of Spain did. Not the Western Church.
O ORIENTE ABANDONOU A FÉ HORTODOXA EM 1054 NO CISMA DO ORIENTE.
@@jeffersoncruz2898 Em 810D, Carlos Magno pediu ao santo Papa Leão II que acrescentasse o filioque ao credo.
Leão II recusou e pregou duas placas de prata nas portas da sua basílica. Cada um tinha o texto do credo (sem o filioque) em grego e latim, bem como esta frase:
Eu, Leon, fiz isso pela salvação e pelo amor da fé ortodoxa.
Roma foi ortodoxa até o século 11 e renunciou à fé ortodoxa.
Kyrie eleison.
The Roman Empire ended with the fall of Constantinopla.
According to the logic that the medieval west looked so different than the roman empire style in warfare than the byzantine empire is also not considered roman anymore because they looked nothing like early roman army's. That's just progression. Very interesting video because i had already made the same conclusion lately.
It has just fractioned across the world
… can u look up the difference between civilisation and empires bc those are VERY different and ive never seen anyone claim the civilisation itself died 😭😭😭
Unfortunately a lot of people do. Google about the state of roman identity in the middle ages and you'll see pretty much all the results are armchair reddit scholars saying Roman identity completely died out by the 6th century, 7th at the latest (except in the east, where they're willing to claim it lasted until the 20th century because of a few isolared rural communities that still called themselves Roman. 🙄 go figure).
Wow this was reallllly good. Recent convert from Protestantism. This gets at some things I’ve struggled with regarding nationalism and its growing acceptance in Uber conservative reformed circles.
Welcome home brother! I feel I should have clarified a bit more that loving and serving one's nation is not wrong, but that the social darwinist ethnic nationalism as a sort of cult was a progressive brain child.
@@historiaecclesiastica sure I took that as a given personally. But this helps in not going down the ethno nationalist route for sure.
very interesting
Very interested in the lectures on the missionary work of the apostles
“LOOK ME IN MY EYES.”
-Julius Nepos
Very interesting.
such a weird video. Who said Roman civilization fell? It was the western Roman *empire* that fell. Of course the civilization continued. It's like making the case that in the post-British empire era the British "civilization" hasn't fallen because we still speak English, and have trials by jury and read Shakespeare.
@@anotherlook6930It doesn't get more Judeo than Christianity. And nothing could be more Judeo Christian than Rome, the first empire to betray its own culture in favor of a Jewish death cult.
That's not the title. A head pater in Rome what do *you* mean it wasn't the same institution
If we are speaking english is because the US not UK, it was either Spanish or French the lincua franca before that happened.
@@juanmartinmesa2228 The British empire gave birth to the US.
Fall of the western Roman empire is a protestant (English mostly) propaganda against the Catholics.
Isn't the symbole for ... Bluetooth ? 0:28
8:59 I’ve known that Romans believe Judaism is older than them but how did they know that Moses was older than Homer?
Good question. The classical dating of the Iliad events put the Trojan War at about 1200 BC - Homer wrote of this event after it happened, perhaps by several hundred years. Classical dating of the Exodus story puts the life of Moses before the Trojan War.
There was no such concept of "Europe" until the Roman conquests, integration and disintegration. Rome itself wasn't Roma without the Etruscans. It was literally a backwoods city without much of anything in the way of "civilization". The Etruscans were the "advanced" people in the region. Thus, almost everything we think of as Roman was originally Etruscan- the toga, the fasces, wine-making, metallurgy, the religious traditions, city planning, eating reclined- all of this was Etruscan. Rome conquered and absorbed the Etruscan city kingdoms, culture and all. Rome did a similar thing with Greece and were similarly Hellenized. The major and pivotal difference between Rome and the Etruscans and the Greeks, other than language, was the distinctly Roman Worldview and Value System. Your assertion that this somehow lives on in the Catholic Church is certainly debatable. A examination of etymological evolution from the Res Publica to the Catholic Church would be a good place to test this theory.
You ain't fooling me
Those holy orders of knights, pre-eminently the Knights Templar were actually Crypto-Mithraists, to some extent Crypto-Manachean... they basically merged with the Cathars and Troubadours at home, the latter two were antenomian with some gross practices, even though in their old age they have those "perfecti" who were religious ascetics... the Templars formed the Medieval banking system backed by their military strength which is a dangerous combination. It was probably a great thing that they got repressed since that temporal power mixed with their occultism is a combination for eevviill.
The Templars made close relations with the Ishmaelis of the Islamic world who were also Crypto-Mithraists and so they shared knowledge, networks, practices, etc. The Ishmaelis are also known as the Hashashim or Assassins... again, subversive occultists representing themselves as promoters of the conventional moral order but wolves in sheeps clothing.... this approach carried through in Europe from the Templars to the Rosicrucians to the Freemasons to the Illuminatus to various British empire movements like the Round Table and Fabians. It actually was linked to the Vril and Thule society and OCO that was big with the 3rd Reich.... well there's still these powerful occult networks today responsible for much.
I've never heard any of these theories, do you have any books you could recommend on them?
@@historiaecclesiastica to get the big picture of what's going on would require going to a secondary source: Mathew Ehret and Cynthia Chung of the Rising Tide Foundation have done the best job I've seen in synthesizing this long view of history while not themselves being part of the reverence of the occult mysticism that tends to pull people towards evil. They have all kinds of books they've written and recommend as well as discussing past sources.
So you don't acknowledged that the roman empire continue in the eastern part what you foolishly called Byzantium the people you called never called themselves that but Romans
Even in the Quran they are referred as Romans there is a chapter mentioning them where Allah states how they will defeat their opponents the Persians and they do defeat after they had been defeated
When the sultanate of Rum you foolishly called the Ottoman empire they did not called themselves that but sultans of Rum they carried the tradition after conquering Constantinople
As for the western part of the empire you can claimed to have continue that is made up history
Lets remember the Romans were not Christian they adopted different forms of Christianity Catholicism in the west and Orthodox in the east but the rightful ones are those in the east not the west
They had called those who took over barbarians and they were not Romans like those in the west
The west has issues of language. The Chinese as we call Chinese in the West.To make it simple is really Mandarin.Mandarin is the main language and the main culture of these people , not chinese. The problem with the roman strategy in the west is that empire is one thing , but civilization in technologies a whole other thing. And there is a dark age of civilization in the West after the destruction From Emperor justintine. The majority of construction technology is lost in the west and it's never regained until the Renaissance. You would have to argue language and technology loss to make this very unpopular thing work. We can argue this for the Egyptians between the bronze age.Collapsed and afterwards, as there's noticing.A huge drop in technology after the bronze age collapse for the egyptians to before. But as we know the after a myth of these people did that last long and they soon became the bitch of any other empire in the area. This was also true with the western romans Which can we really say are roman after a couple of hundred years. I agree that the Roman civilization lasted longer than the empires.Collapsing the west , but I don't really think you got what you think you got here.
Roman Empire died with Tsar Nicholas.
Napoleon was essentially a Visigoth and Charlemagne was an Ostrogoth. Napoleon was evening the score between East and West. He even crowned himself Emperor because, by that time, having the pope crown him (like the pope crowned Charlemagne) was meaningless. Centuries later, the German (Ostrogoth) dictator tried to seize control back from Napoleon.
The history of Europe is the story of the struggle between the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths. Napoleon, Hitler, and the next European emperor (whoever that will be) is just a manifestation of that eternal struggle.
rome fell in 476 a.c.
Good topic but to many flaws.
Byzantine empire was Roman empire!! They did not like charlemagne calling himself emperor of the romans when they already had the emperor of the Roman's in the east, . A woman in the time of charlemagne claimed the title and was almost married to him till she was killed for it and a new emperor of the Roman's was crowned in the east....not to mention justinian getting a random hare and decided to conquer the west lol
In fact, it still hasn't. Republic of Finland has a line of descent from Rome, and is the most legitimate successor to currently exist.
Lol the United States IS THE CURRENT ROMAN EMPIRE...
humanism is good, but conservative humanists ruin it. nationalism absolutely is a conservative ideal. you don't get to go back in history and tag conservative on anything that you think was good, and remove it from anything you think was bad.
Rome !== the Church.
I concur with this video I would say Rome is still prominent till this day...
The map of the Roman Empire in 0 AD as presented here is incorrect: it shouldn't cover Britain, Mauretania in Africa, and vast stretches of land along the Danube as well as Illyricum, Thrace (modern Bulgaria) and Cappadocia (modern Eastern Turkey). By "0 AD", those still were either unconquered territories or clients of Rome.
Also, what is "0 AD"? 1 AD followed 1 BC.
Spain was never controlled by the Ostrogoths, except for the period of Theodorich. It was Visigothic. By the time of Charlemagne, it had been in the Arabic possession.
"Duke" is _dux_ , a military chief of a Roman province or diocese. After the deposition of the usurper, it is said that the Senate appealed to Emperor Zeno to have Odovacer supposedly granted with the title of patrician and the rule over the Italian diocese (not an ecclesiastic jurisdiction but a Roman administrative unit). This description is unclear, since there were two dioceses in existence, _Italia Suburbicaria_ and _Italia Annonaria_ , each of those made of provinces. The provinces had the principal military commander in the position of _dux_ . However, if Odovacer was indeed referred to as _dux_ in the context of a diocese, that could imply he was in charge of the Roman troops of either of the two dioceses that shared the name of _Italia_ and comprised the lands up to the Alpine ridge, or he commanded both dioceses. The latter would bring to his clout all of modern Italy and the upper Danube province of Raetia.
The rest of the video more or less goes along the Roman continuity idea, however, the primary motivation for Charlemagne to seek the title of the Roman Emperor was not the act of the Romans coronating him regardless of their considerations, but the situation in Constantinople where Irene of Athens seized power. Charlemagne (with or without the incitement by the Pope) used that as a ploy to claim the title of the Roman Emperor as a successor to the murdered Emperor Constantine VI. His marriage proposal to Irene amplifies his intentions to occupy the vacant throne as a new husband of Irene, replacing Constantine VI. It took him the good ten years to legitimize his position after the toppling of Irene. During these ten years he was unacknowledged (that is, a usurper) and had striven to finalize the acquisition of the title to preserve his power, realm and dynasty.
Also, note that the configuration of the lands donated to the Pope aligned with the former Exarchate of Ravenna.
Why did you skip the Fourth Crusade? Was that because it wouldn't fit into the framework of the Roman Christians helping their Eastern brothers against the Saracens?
"The fall of Constantinople at the hands of the Turks as a divine punishment for heresy" looks odd in the light of the Crusade of 1444 when the combined army of European powers, far stronger than that of the eastern Romans in 1453, suffered a heavy loss at Varna, Bulgaria. If "rejecting a schism" is allegedly a sufficient reason to explain the fall of Constantinople then how would you explain the defeat of 1444 and earlier defeats you mentioned before?
Evidence of Biblical prophesies eh?
I would also not call myself a Roman
Rome NEVER fell they reconceptualized
I was very confused since so many call the Church, Rome. I thought for a moment you thought we had not had a Pope since the 1800s . 😅
I'm glad to see Pints with Aquinas viewers have similar tastes.
@@MrShady-dz5ew I am probably not a good litmus test for PWA fans. 😅
wow, you better do more resurch. there is much more to discover. and none of it good for your church
Read the bible on your own, truly humble yourself and you will find God. There is a reason 100s of millions died to be free from this beast. The greatest enemies of rome was ex romans
Thank the universe for Humanism! Without it Europe would still be in the dark ages fighting each other over different religious fairytales
Ww1 ww2 the current war Un Europe.
What are you talking about?
Why do you use fairytale like it’s some “childish nonsense.” Fairytales and myths contain universal truths of life and the universe and in some cases are based on real events or actually happened. The Story of Christ is a real “myth”, perhaps the greatest. Look up Tolkien’s thoughts on myths and fairytales.
“Neither holy nor Roman nor an empire”
SANTO, ROMANO E IMPÉRIO!
É A SANTA IGREJA CATÓLICA ROMANA QUEM DEFINE O QUE É IMPÉRIO ROMANO.
MAIS NINGUÉM!
Moses did not exist and Homer was older than the five books attributed to Moses. The torah did not reach a form we would recognize until the hellenistic period. It did not become authoritative until the 3rd to 2nd Century BCE and the Tanakh was not cannonized until about 90CE.
LOL INSANE COPE this is because if you admit Rome fell in 1453 your gonna have the problem of Islam fulfilling Daniels prophecy of the gods kingdom on earth.
What? 🤣
@@mikeb7118 Go check out the prophecy in the bible where in the book of Daniel it talks abut Gods Kingdom on earth will come regards to Nebuchadnezzars dream. The prophecy lines up and all evidence points the kingdom to being islam. So christians and jews have been trying to mix Roman Empire with the greek empire saying they are the exact same or doing what this clown in the video is saying, that Roman Empire never fell. Because the prophecy in the Bible states that Gods kingdom on earth will come and destroy the romans and all the other empires before it. Historically it was the rashidun caliphate who stole many of the lands from romans and exactly in 1453 when muslim Ottoman Empire destroyed Roman Empire.
Look at the doorway statue's of the city hall of Nuremberg. The holy roman empire was established to fullfill this prophecy
This is what we call "autism"