So many important details left out. But sadly this is Jesuit history, cherry picked to push a certain perspective. And rarely the accurate one. Julian may have been brave in battle but why was he there? People died for pride and greed. And this is leaving out all the religious things. This series is pretty good at pushing catholic lies and omitting the most important things.

@@joshportie why would catholics lionize Julian "The Apostate", he was the last anti-christian emperor.

@@joshportieThis is simply false, Mike is not spreading Catholic lies in this series at all. If anything, he frequently rejects the Christian narrative for a (probably) more true and nuanced telling. And this is coming from a devout Christian.

​@@joshportieWeird take, especially being that Mike doesn't qualify pagan links to Christianity besides repeating many incorrect assumptions. Syncrinism aside mike glosses over many things and takes the devils advocate approach against the church as a baseline assumption. Only taking the orthadox position out of inter Christian conflict from a secular consensus.

lol

I don't believe the invasion had anything at all to do with legitimacy.

A little reconnaissance goes a long way.

Yeah, compared to Italy which was ravaged during the Gothic war, North Africa was easy to retake.

yessir

Was it ever stable? Governor Solomon was killed by the Berbers and raids were constant.

My favorite emperor

Mitch Canter ok c’mon, really? You’d put him over Trajan, Constantine, Augustus, Aurelius, etc? Yeah he was pretty cool and coulda done a lot if he didn’t die young, but died foolishly. The man had no plan and ... forgot his breastplate

@@kanyekubrick5391 Well, Roman armies often went into battle without helmet and armor, even in the early days... But not against Persia where you can expect nonstop missiles flying at you.

Yeah, but that war against the sassanids was dumb, especially since Shapur was ready to negotiate a peace treaty that would benefit them both.

He should have had a goal. Like conquer Persia.

Good name

He was a refreshing change.

Jovian, you're not happy about this...

😂

Not sure Apollo was an improvement

Julian was the opposite of rational as concerning religion. Many pagans saw him as superstitious. Imagine if for every important decision, you slaughtered an animal, and had a priest check the entrails to make sure the auspices were good, and now you can start to get into the mind of Julian. He made sacrifices daily, so people called him "the butcher." Jokes were made that the empire would run out of cattle. The Romans, like most ancient peoples, were very superstitious, no matter what their religion.

This is hysterical! I guess not too many people knew who you were referring to. But I love this!

I should be finishing up the Rome series within the next month or so. :)

Thanks.

Better than the alternative. Keep in mind that if history was different then none of us alive today would be alive at all. So it is what it is.

- Timaeus - I’d rather not have lived and spare Europe of Christianity, or any other middle eastern religion

+Antonio Brandao Fudel system SUCKED Popes are wierd pervs Crusades SUCKED Inquisitions SUCKED Salem whuch trials SUCKED Knight's Templares are wierd(Baphomet) Slaughter of Hs of thousands of Native Americans for non convertion is beyoned horrific. I see your point.

+- Timaeus - Nova Republica AD 361! huh whadya think? Why did this never happen I love the drama & vibe & proceedings of the republic. Gladiator movie should have happend AD 185 NOVA REPUBLICA !!! No am I alone in this dream? Republica?

@@AntonioBrandao I could easily see a much greater Arab expansion without Christianity.

No!!! Quicksand quagmire. How do you defeat the people who invented civilization?

Yes Heracules the first crusader.

Exactly! Lol

@Fun Fact i have a collection

Makes as much sense as anything else.

@@Grabovsky85 Exactly. We've all sat here and listened to 40 hours of this podcast so far....and more for me as this is the second time I'm rewatching. The narrator can tell us with confidence the course of events over the last 100 years, but any time a Woman does evil it's a false accusations? Bullshit

@@pharaohsmagician8329 If you’ve listened through this twice, you’d remember that Mike has pointed to shitty women doing bad things many, many times. He just laughs off the “evil stepmom” trope that the Romans wheeled out literally every time there was an _uppity_ woman in a place of power. But do you not remember Agrippina or Elagabalus’ mom? Or were you just not paying attention? Those are just two _evil_ Roman women from off the top of my head that I only learned about through this podcast, so I’m sure Mike’s talked about more that I’m not remembering rn. Such a bad faith reply from you, and you should feel embarrassed for writing it. Well, I guess you shouldn’t feel embarrassed about it anymore since it’s been 8 months lol, but regardless. I hope you’ve realized that Mike has been only interested in telling history he could find solid sources for. And, if there’s discrepancies in the record, he’ll always tell them and then his own opinion (like he did in this episode with how Julian ultimately died)

@@Kyle_Schaff I don't think I understand your comment, what my original comment meant was that any time in this podcast a woman was doing anything bad or evil, Mike went on a long rant justifying her evil and basically brushing it over as accusations against woman borne from ancient sexism, yet had no reservations when it came to calling men evil. Almost anytime a woman did bad he called her evil. In the podcast there really isn't any time he brings up a normal non upper class woman doing evil the same way he never really brings up a non upper class man doing evil, aside from a Legionary or enemy combatant. So what I'm trying to say is that I disagree with Mike here because woman are just as much capable of evil and that the wicked stepmom trope he thinks is ridiculous makes no sense, woman are equally capable of evil. Even when one of the Christian Expresses was persecuting pagans and slaughtering them, all he said about that was "less than laudatory persecution of pagans" at the end of a glowing rang about how amazing she was. He's obviously overly liberal. And his bias shows in the podcast. When Julian persecuted Christians in non violent ways he went on endless sarcastic rants, Either way your comment makes you sound like a bitch haha

@@pharaohsmagician8329 I just don’t think you understand how history was preserved back then. Mike could talk at length about shitty men because women literally couldn’t even own private property (remember why Boudicca started her rebellion?), so they had very little power to express how shitty they were. If you don’t have any power and you’re a marginalized and neglected group, of course no one bothered to write serious history about women in Rome. For example, when an emperor died and we have a wealth of information about the circumstances around it, him saying anything more than “and there was a rumor that the stepmom did it” and then dismissing it makes perfect sense to me. When the only evidence is the resurfacing of the trope I’ve now seen at least a half dozen times and there’s literally nothing to back it up, it’s not serious history. It’s cool to know because it helps put me in the mind of the Romans, but I can understand that it almost certainly was never true except in the circumstances where her means and motive lined up. And what’s this rant about Christianity? I don’t know how to tell you why you’re wrong other than to recommend maybe watching through it all a third time. Do you not understand that anyone who says “less than laudatory persecution” after talking about how the person slaughtered others is super sarcastic and very much his writing style? “He’s obviously overly liberal,” you want us to shit on ancient Roman women more because both sexes are human, and you’re trying to jerk off the anti-Christian emperor because he wasn’t one of the bad ones. I’m fairly confident in saying that you’re digesting this content in an unhealthy way, and you are missing the point that this is ancient history and not a political statement. I could never imagine getting so worked up and feeling personally slighted when a podcaster made sarcastic remarks against an emperor I liked who’s been dead for almost 1700 years even though his tone has been consistent since episode 1. I gotta wish you good luck out there if you’re at this level of angst and pettiness over ancient Roman women and Julian because I’m getting some terminally-online vibes from ya lmao

Can be too dangerous, they get impatient for their reign to begin… no ruler can have perfectly “absolute power”

Actually would be pronounced seh-WAY-rus (Vs in Latin sound like Ws and the second e is pronounced as a long a”

@@jclev2491 Which is exactly why it's wise to just ignore the pronunciation errors and watch some videos on Latin pronunciation after the fact. Reciting them in their popular English pronunciations makes it much easier to hold the name in your mind, otherwise I'm pretty sure we'd be dealing with names like "Yulius Kaisar" and "Kickero" which is fine if you're up on the pronunciation but could get really confusing for some listeners. It's only really when his pronunciation goes even against spelling (as with his insistence on "Maximin-i-us Thrax") that I get irked.

Agreed brother

No. The war was stupid. So was his war on Christianity. He would have been a good emperor but he threw away his reforms for some glory. But he was a romantic who wanted a Caesar esque romantic victory. Caesar's wars were not stupid by any definition of the word. Julian screwed up and he deserved to pay for it with his life. Don't be mad at Mike because he rightly points out that your hero barely made it a year then ruined his own reign. The fact that he died speaks for itself.

@@theskycavedin9592 "the fact that he died" lol how many of the Greatest Emperors died in bed at a ripe old age from natural causes? Definitely not Caesar. Not Aurelian. In Caesars own words he was one of the luckiest generals iin the world. Getting trapped between two walls, getting trapped twice in Briton, getting trapped without boats when fighting Pompey, getting trapped in the Royal Egyptian Palace for months on end and getting drunk to feel better....all of those were stupid things that Caesar has done because fortune favors the bold and it leads to glory and greatness. Alexander was stabbed in the back of the head during his first ever battle of personal conquest because he charged alone to scare the enemy and for personal glory and now we call him the Great. Julian was no different. He used his tactics to great results. In this very episode you can see after he dies that his army hates his replacement because he cowardly gives up when everyone in the army knows they had the means to keep fighting and actually win. Just because the Emperor dies doesn't mean the fight is over. So many times in history victory is determined by boldness and unorthodox manuvers to surprise the enemy. Julian planned his attack so well that he was able to repell not 1 not 2 but a 3 sided surprise attack. The fact that he only died because he didn't have the time to wear armor means nothing. It speaks well of him. Maybe if he had waited to put it on he wouldn't have been able to rally his troops quick enough and they would have broken on one side and let the whole army get destroyed. Every single great Emperor has been a Romantic. Dying in the battle field lol does not disprove that it almost guarantees it. Constantine himself did many of these dangerous suicidal moves. Often times the difference between gallant bravery and reckless foolishness in ambitious men is determined by losing. The same action can be looked as heroic brave, fortune favors the bold, risk taking, if one wins. The same kind of strategy applies to the business world as well. Loss is just failure with a monetary value. When you fail at anything and don't lose money you are quick to move on and learn a lesson from it and make sure it doesn't happen again. But when you have a monetary loss you're much more likely to tread carefully, even to a fault, because you don't want to lose money again. But it requires taking that risk to be succesful in any venture. Almost all of the great warrior Emperors died after a few years. Julian accomplished way more in a single year than any of the ones before him did as well. He was the *Best* Emperor.

@@theskycavedin9592 Infact, in the next episode of this series you will hear Mike Say, "the best way to secure political legitimacy is by a war of conquest in the ancient world" just ask Julian but you don't need to hear him say that if you've been listening to this podcast up until this point. It should be more clear than the beautiful blue sky on the day they placed the Crown upon the head of Julian the Pagan, the rays of the *Bright Sun* lighting up the *World*. The Sassassinds had been at constant war for 200 years against Rome. They were directly threatening to have war with Julian's precursor, I think I was Constantius. He literally demanded Constantius give the Sassanids like 4 huge provinces or else he would invade. Constantius refused and went to war with the Sassassind Empire and then they retreated and tried to send another treaty. Like they have done so often before they would most likely attack again in 1 years time from a stronger position. Had Julian not attacked now, he would most likely be criticized by his own people (and you) for showing weakness and not attacking a Great eternal enemy that had just been threatening Rome and marching it's armies around and demanding to be given land. The fact that we just gloss over the fact that they had been fighting for 200 years non stop is very critical here. It was not small skirmishes. Constantine had epic huge battles against the Sassanid Empire and they gave him the same false treaty and then attacked anyways. His son Constantius had the exact same reign and fought many battles against the Sassanid Empire. From Julian's perspective he took the initiative and attacked first to defend his land instead of waiting to be on the weak end and have to respond to someone else's invasion, and did a very good job at it. Had he wore his armor, we would have seen evey single one of his policies have great success and improvement upon the Roman Empire. He was a humble man and realistic. Not demanding his robes be kissed like Diocletian and Constantine. And look how many times the Romans that came after him fought against Shapur as well. His war against them was justified.

@theskycavedin and his War against a E. V. I. L religion that destroys everything it touches was also well deserved. And he was such a high minded man that he waged that war without bloodshed in the most successful way possible. He defranschised the religion. Much more effective and much less evil than persecution. Julian was a hero and a very smart man for seeing the absolute disgusting way the cu...lt destroys civilization and ruins mankind. Since I wrote that comment I have become far more against that cult of violence and now I see it as just as dangerous as the other cult in the east in today. They are plagues on man.