Hi baker boy

Isn't 'Servilla' a mistake, it should be 'Servilia'

Patiently waiting on the conclusion of the denominations tree

No mention about Zenobia being a descendant of Cleoptatra? Unlikely Heliogabal, she was actually the MOST well-known descendant of the Queen-Pharaoh, even by her own contemporaries... as well as by native Egyptian nationalists who welcomed the Palmyrene Empress with open hands, even crowning her new legitimate Pharaoh under the name of her ancestress.

@@ptolemeeselenion1542 Yes she was a claimed descendant of Cleopatra. There is however, no full known line, or further evidence that she actually was. I am not saying she wasn't though. Fabricated and claimed descent was very common and sometimes this descent was accepted by people, which is not necessarily evidence that it is true. We simply do not know and it seems like we cannot know.

Nepotism to an extent

I think the only time in this period the surviving blood son of an emperor was Britannicus and look what happened to him.

If someone managed to get elevated to the purple and hold the empire safe from the external enemies, internal rebellions,ambitious generals, senatorial conspiracies, praetorian shenanigans, and civil unrest, then that person was be fitted for the job. If not, then his days were numbered. It is more interesting to know why they survived or get killed rather than why they were elected.

It was a meritocratic (in abroad sense) but also dynastical principle. New rulers always tried to form their own dynasties, because that's the "natural" thing to do to preserve power, but since the legitimacy did not come FROM the dynasty, the could be overthrown with relative ease.

@CipiRipi00 I don't think the principate was ever intended to be meritocratic. The mindset of the roman aristocracy (of which Caesar and Augustus were members) revolved around thir gens (dynasties) and family ties, as can clearly be seen in the first part of the chart. However, since the roman state was officially still a republic and the power of the ruler only came from an agglomeration of republican titles, offices and competencies, the dynasties themselves did not carry the same sacral/inherited legitimacy as in later times. They were important for the rulers when they chose their successors, but on their own they could not withstand political or military opposition. When the former emperor's grip on power had been weak, his son usually wasn't able to prevail, as can be seen during the crisis of the third century. Clarification: So it was meritocratic by accident, not on purpose. Only Diocletian tried to create a truly meritocratic, non-dynastic system, and he failed spectacularly. The dynastic mechanic was too strong, but it also never became the sole principle of power. The "meritocracy of force" always remained a factor, even in the Byzantine Empire. A dynasty was never safe on its own, only if the current ruler was strong enough.

Funny to our ears that the title “dictator” was acceptable, though “king” (rex) was not. And funny that the surname Caesar went on to become synonymous with king.

@@q-tuber7034 well dictator just means "one who speaks", because what the dictator says has the full force of law for his tenure. Prior to Sulla, the longest reign of a dictator was 6 months.

We have the same thing in many countries right now which are monarchies in all but name. Like North Korea, which is a communist country and by definition officially hates everything associated with monarchy. The same was true for Cuba until 2021. Turkmenistan is another known example.

@@Vielenberg why'd you avoid China tho, among their censored online posts are those comparing Xi Jinping to the First Emperor of Qin (Qin _Shi Huang_ )

@@user-ix1rp9ff3p Because there are many dictatorships in the world. If we talk about monarchies in all but name we talk about those dictatorships which have a system of hereditary transfer of power.

Oprah: "Everyone gets a-----sinated today!!!"

The Emperors thought, "Yeah, the Pr*etorians killed so many emperors before, but THIS time, they'll be loyal! ....right?" That was the way of things until Diocletianus decided to abandon them and adopt a new guard. And Constantinus abolished them in favor of the Palatini.

@@aaronTGP_3756 "Then Constantinus a" what

And it all went down immediately. God; nepotism sucks. Humanity failing to actually integrate meritocracy is a painful loss. I wont act as if I couldnt relate to a father wanting to give the fruits of his hard work to his son; but when it comes to politics and power dynamics... it has basically never proven to be a good idea..

@@EinFelsbrocken The concept of nepotism only makes sense in an environment in which personal ties are, at least formally, not important - in other words in an abstract meritocracy. But that would've been a rather strange concept to these people back then. Of course the roman republic included meritocratic elements, but family ties were still the most important element of securing power. It has been this way for most of human history (and it is still relevant today, just look at North Korea, Azerbaijan, Nicaragua, etc., etc.). That's the point I was trying to make, this wasn't a meritocracy that failed because of dynastic nepotism, it was dynastic continutity that was temporally distorted by an accidental meritocracy.

@@untruelie2640 I agree with everything you said; I guess I just had to vent for a second there 😅

You'll have to provide a source for that since almost all classical historians would disagree with what you just said.

>Be Roman Emperor >Be a Good Roman Emperor >Waste your life and well being for the good of Empire >Give 0 (Zero) "Ø" fucks who is going to be your successor >Accidental succeed by another good Emperor 5xCombo Legit 💯💯 fr fr No 🧢🧢💊 Definitely believable argument, I applaud thee

Lmao.

Not just one, but two. Zenobia, another direct descendant of Cleopatra, "usurped" the control of much of the oriental provinces of the Roman Empire by 270 CE. Her Palmyrene Empire lasted for three years.

Alas Octavian didn't get their vile spawns

Wait what?!

Lol.

polygamy is not similar to concubinage tho, especially if those emperors were from the West

Y'all remember when Tiberius razed the American capital with the aid of Koreans in 367 AD

@@InvadeleYogurt Was too busy focusing on the Shoshone Empire dispatching its first Privateers to attack Cardiff.

😂😂

Also Agrippa Postumus. Another son of Marcus Agrippa and Julia the Elder. Another missed opportunity is Cornelia, Julius Caesar’s wife was the granddaughter of Sulla.

Also wasn't Augustus' maternal grandfather a cousin of Pompey?

@@Cheemsarion sorry, did Julia the Elder other name was Octavia? From what i know Octavia was Agustus two sisters. The one who marry Agrippa was Marcella (daughter of Octavia the Younger) and later Julia the Elder (daughter of Augustus)

@@passerby7112 I made a mistake I meant to say Julia the Elder not Octavia. Julia and Agrippa had 5 children. Gaius Caesar, Julia the Younger, Lucius Caesar, Agrippina the Elder, and Agrippa Postumus.

@@Cheemsarion oh okay , thanks👍

@CipiRipi00 That's the thing: as far as we can tell, it didn't. You're right that according to Roman custom he should've been called Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, but he never was. Probably due to his political need to emphasize his connection to the late Caesar as much as possible. You've correctly presented the logic behind the conventional name, but AFAIK - it's still just convention.

It's not even the most annoying Englification of a Roman General within the second triumvirate. The most annoying is how English speaking people call Marcus Antonius.

Well calling him Gaius Iulius Ceaser while accurate is also very confusing. So we accept Octavian or Augustus as inaccurate but necesary consesions. Although I suppose we could call him Deus fillis, but that might confuse him with Jesus.

@@KKKKKKK777js It'd be Divi Fillius. The OG Caesar was a mortal defied, which makes him a Divi. Deus is for a higher order of gods, not for ex-mortals. Also, on an unrelated note to the other poster, I feel that my point has been misunderstood? "Obviously it's convention, everything about Roman names is" would've made sense if ROMANS called him Octavianus. As far as we can tell though, they didn't - so we gave him that name as a MODERN convention, based on what he should've been called (but WASN'T) according to Roman custom.

It's can be seen as being given the opportunity to kill yourself (which Romans considered honourable) or being executed. Execution came with severe consequences for family inheritence, which forced suicide sometimes could circumvent.

@@MCAPrince isn't that similar to ritual suicide by the Japanese?

Lmao.

As am I

My guess would be Charlemagne and his decedents

I reckon if you looked at the Spanish royal line you could go just about as far back as possible. Links to the Visigoths and the OG Roman Imperial lines. Though really, everybody's family lines all go equally far back, when you think about it. Most Euros can trace their ancestry back to some degree of European nobility, and they're all pretty much interconnected. If one of them can trace their line back to the Romans, they all can, and by extension, so can we.

Or.... all the Diadochi.

Aren’t they Greek?

@@masada2828 Yes. They are all Greeks.

Well yes but actually no. He split it into 4 administrative zones, but only two were ruled by an Augustus while the other two were ruled by Caesars who were in name still subservient to the Augusti. I suppose they'll go more in depth on the tetrarchy when actually discussing Diocletian in the next episode.

Interesting point. Considering the Arabic root for Elagabalus being “Elah Al-Gabal” translating directly to “God of the Mountain”, it would seem like a bizarre given name indeed.

Antoninus Pius has children but is a daughter

Is Pompeianus the inspiration Gladiator?

@@viniciusvyller9458 Part of the inspiration, alongside the wrestler Narcissus.

except for Hadrian he was just gay

@@ultra-papasmurf Not exactly. Today, we would call Hadrian's relationship with Antinous pederastic (between adult man and adolescent boy).

😂😂

Decius ≠ “Dee-shus”

They might starts thinking like the Peaky Blinders.

@@ptolemeeselenion1542 just literal wars, the good part is the innocent masses were kept out of them unlike the English succession (the Roses)

Also: Servilia, not Servilla.

And not a general, unless you count putting down a slave revolt and then getting your ass kicked in your first solo campaign.

Personally the Charles II song is my favourite

“Ran Rome with Pompey and Caesar, they’re more famous than me. But I’m the world’s richest geezer…”

@@kate_cooper THERE'S. NO. ONE RICHER. THAN. ME!

@@revinhatol I’M MINTED!

Actually he escaped with his real father, a lowly Roman soldier by the name of Titus Pullo 😉😂

All of Cleopatra's offspring, save hers and Mark Anthony's daughter Cleopatra Selene, perished in obscure circumstances or had been strangulated by Octavien. He didn't want any legitimate heir to Caesar (Ceasarion) nor any male heir of Cleopatra that might assemble the Egyptians and poses a threat against Rome (any male child) . He undereestemed Selene. He *severely* underesteemed the wrath of a princess and her mother-- and this partly contributed to the decline of the Roman Empire. Egyptians (and much anyone in the Nile Valley) are like the Corsicans, the Amazulus, the Chinese, the Native Americans and the J--ws: they *never* forget. *Never* forgive.

@@buttercxpdraws8101 That's from the HBO TV show, lol.

@@ptolemeeselenion1542 I know honey, it was a joke lol

@@ptolemeeselenion1542 you do realize that Cleopatra's dynasty wasn't Egyptian though? not really sure if the clear-skinned, red-haired descendants of her would really be able to assemble the egyptians. their hold onto power there was already tenuous. but octavian played it safe. regarding selene, she joined an existing dinasty, so that dinasty was able to "claim ancestry" moving forward as a political chip. but it wasn't a dynasty in egypt, it was a whole foreign entity.

They assassinated the emperors because the emperor was not liked by the military or the senate. The emperor as important as he was had not full control over the empire's governament

@@lordfreezer5631 I would think that at some point an emperor would either do their best not to end up disliked and assassinated or would move to get rid of or reform the praetorians is what I meant

😂😂

Should be pronounced Im-pera-ter, right? That’s how I’ve always said it.

It was based on merit. It wasn't a pure coincidence that emperors Trajan through Marcus Aurelius were all good emperors. *But as you said*, ONLY for male relatives, or at "sword-point". The only time they had room to make a pick was when there was no son. -Nerva was a lonely loser with no close male line relatives. So the army forced him to name Trajan as his successor. -Trajan had no sons. So when he died, his wife chose the late emperor's first cousin once removed. -Hadrian was (likely) gay and had no children or close relatives. So he was free to choose basically anyone. Antoninus Pius was adopted on the condition of adopting Lucius Verus, Lucius Aelius' (Hadrian's original intended successor) son. -Antoninus Pius was an old man with only daughters. He named Marcus Aurelius, his wife's nephew, as his son. -Marcus Aurelius had a son, Commodus, and therefore had to make him successor, even though he really didn't want to.

@@aaronTGP_3756 I'm sorry, but how does being the emperor of the motherfucking roman empire make one a loser? you got some real warped views on life.

Thanks, Luigi

Popes are elected, so they usually aren't related.

Yes.

@@ptolemeeselenion1542 you watching the new national treasure series?

While Severus was born as an Equestrian, he was promoted to senatorial rank by Marcus Aurelius. Macrinus is the first to become emperor as an Equestrian.