"But, he was not a goth. He was emo, maybe a scene kid, we don't actually know." Wonderful analysis as always.

Justinian: Prevent the fall of Rome Justinian: Made Rome fall Justinian: Actually no, Rome fall a long time ago, don't look at me

I watched a video describing Justinian's reconquest of Italy as "creating a desert and calling it peace" in the true Roman manner, and it's stuck in my mind ever since.

I believe an aspect that is worth more attention is that the Roman Empire had seen divided political rule repeatedly over its history prior to the fall. Co-rulers, usurpers, break-away regions, civil wars etc. I think it makes sense that few believed this would be the "final" division as there had been so many episodes like this that the empire had survived.

There's an anecdote by Byzantine historian Peter Charanis that touches on this, When the Greeks united Lemnos with the mainland around 1912. The story goes that, when Greek troops first landed, a bunch of local children had come out to watch them arrive. When the Greek soldiers asked them why they were gawking, the children said “we’ve never seen Greeks before.” The soldiers were surprised and asked if the Lemnians were not Greek themselves. The boys replied: “We’re not Greek, we’re Roman.” The Byzantines kept their Roman identity for a thousand years and even Ottoman occupation didn't full wipe it out. Kind of like how some peoples I've met in Iraq still claim Assyrian heritage.

The idea of Rome living on in its former citizens has always been fascinated to me. I'm reminded of a very extreme example of a group of Greek boys speaking with soldiers during WW2, calling themselves Roman instead of Greek. I think that had Justinian just appointed the barbarian rulers in the west to pseudo-governer positions, using Rome's reputation to assure the authority of the kings, perhaps Roman rule in western Europe could've lasted longer. However, things would probably turn out bad anyways. I can imagine a succession crisis in Constantinople causing barbarian kingdoms to break away permanently, and with time the idea of a "fall of Rome" would grow in the minds of everyone, such as it did with Marcellinus and Justinian.

The Roman Senate continued to meet into the 7th century. It was really the Lombards who severed the civic traditions in the West and replaced them with feudal monarchy.

That was fascinating. I have read, listened to and watched many analyses of when and why Western Rome fell, but I have never seen this argument as laid out here, which is incredibly compelling. Justinian retroactively engineered the fall of the Western Roman Empire half a century earlier. Incredible. And beyond Rome itself, it raises all kinds of intriguing philosophical questions about perception vs reality.

Awesome take. When I was young, I idealized the Romans and Greeks. Now I understand that they got in their own way so much, and the Roman Empire fell when it had to. Both in the West, and in the East.

The actual last emperor of the west was Julius Nepos, not Romulus Augustulus. When Odoacer deposed Augustulus, both Odoacer and the Roman governor of Gaul, Syagrius, minted coins acknowledging Nepos as Roman Emperor, who had been living in exile in Dalmatia. The year that this last emperor was murdered was also the same year the Franks invaded Gaul, suggesting that the murder of Nepos had far greater consequences for the west than the modern narrative is telling us.

What an incredible question that barely anyone thinks about.

I hardly think Justinian’s imperial conquests can be blamed for the plague or “the year without a sun” crop failures.

Wonderful stuff! So much of history hinges on how we define things as much as the events; in other words, our reactions are at least as important as the things as they occur.

Did Rome truly fall? Are not we all Romans? Well, at least my money has Latin on it.

Damn. My opinions on Justinian's acts and conquests had been going negative for a while, and I knew that the West considered itself the west at the time, but at the end I didn't consider the massive implications this gave to the Romans and how we understand what is Rome. During Justinian's reign, while he reconquered Italy, much of it was destroyed & Roman legions were preoccupied in the legion for a long time, diverting forces from the (in reality) most important field: the East (which I think is a major reason why Rome long-term would bite the dust, especially considering how the ERE was weakened with the black plague & the Sassanid conquests to a point where it couldn't stand up to the Arabs) I didn't really think of the religious implications to what is Rome now however, and I only thought the inhabitants of Italy saw themselves as Roman during this time, not territories as "far" away as in Frankia. Great video!

Justinians conquest of Italy sadly enough destroyed Rome, and began the destruction of the east. North Africa worked out ok though.

Criminally underrated Chanel, top tier content

it is interesting that an empire trying his best to save the empire ended up being the one who essentially destroyed the last traces of it in it's own homeland. It's almost mythologically poetic.

Amazing video and analysis as always. Hoping you continue with your Hunnic and Steppe series sometime soon as well.

This is really nice stuff! Great story, great references. Thanks 🙏.

I liked as soon as I read the title.

Fascinating and very persuasive look at the question of Rome’s so-called “fall”… Thanks for another terrific video.

Wow, this was excellent. I didn't think I would go for another history channel, but your in-depth takes are fascinating, I'm learning so much!

Excellent video. And we see echoes of this 'factionalisation' in many other spheres of life, from religion to politics, even to music. 'You're not the true [insert religion], we are, and we are gonna fight you to prove it!'.

Nice looking forward to a video on the Ostrogothic kingdom.Wish we new more about its Military. Defiantly my favorite kingdom.

Interesting to see the negative perception of Justinian in the comments, and the sympathies held for the barbarian kingdoms. To me the most Roman thing about Justinian as an Emperor was his desire to bring all of the Empire under his direct authority. Could anyone blame him for having that ambition that so many past Emperors had?

Just discovered this channel. Great stuff!

left me thinking damn.. Great video!! this really is making me rethink my entire thinking on Roman Succession

Great idea for a topic! Now I know what to watch tonite or with breakfast.

What’s interesting is that, nowadays, a lot of newer historiography on the Roman Empire now includes Justinian. I think more people are starting to realize the fall of Rome isn’t as cut and dry as many of us have learned.

Thank you for this very interesting video!

Rome may have accidentally shot itself in the chest, but it was Justinian who shot it in the head.

If you're into this era (and you obviously are lol) Librivox has a great free audiobook called Theodoric the Goth by Thomas Hodgkin. Old school, but very well written.

Love, that you used res publica romana instead of the word imperium! Truly the military history visualized for the antiquity ;)

You have a good speaking voice and you've earned a new subscriber.

One of the best videos I've seen in a very long time.

Wait so did the Vandal kingdom and its inhabitants see themselves as a part of the Roman world?

I fundamentally disagree for a few reasons but SUPER interesting video, definitely intending on sharing it. Good job.

I just discovered this channel it's really a hidden gem, like how does he have only 62k views?!

This was a great video. Thanks!

One of your best yet! I think Justinian overreached and ended up crushing his own dreams. If he had just made his law code, and maybe fought in other wars. maybe even including in North Africa and Spain, he could have been considered one of the best emperors ever--even WITH the plague. But instead he let it all slip through his fingers by just trying to grab it.

It must have been fascinating to think of the Imperium as intact, just divided between Barbarian Kings until those Kings told the Emperors to mind their own business (cough* Vandals)

Hey man I have always been a huge ancient Rome fanboy and recently have been plowing through the History of Byzantium podcast as my knowledge of the eastern empire is not as good as the west. This video absolutely blew my mind and I have been binging your videos. Great work!

Always a good zinger at the end of these, I love it lol.

Issue is people don’t differentiate between Roman civilization and the Roman political entity, Rome as a continuous political entity in the west undoubtedly ended 476 while Roman laws, religion, language, architecture etc lived on. Roman civilization never died but the Roman state did and it’s really that simple in my mind.

"Some people in Constantinople even grumbled that the emperor Justinian himself was a foreigner- that is, a “barbarian”-because he came from the Balkans and spoke Greek with a Latin accent." WARREN TREADGOLD, The formation of a byzantine identity, pp. 325-326

Most engrossing, thank you!

What an intresting question. I never thought about this before. Thanks jii 🙏🏻

Theoderich was pretty much all about continuity. Just look at his mausoleum or his order to abandon ostrogothic burial practices. The Ostrogoths during his reign pretty much vanish from the archaeological record of burials.

2:23 basically they just saw Eastern Rome how we see America and this Ostrogothic kingdom as just a vassal continuation of a Roman country empire state but with this Germanic warlord from a Germanic dynasty simply ruling over local Italic aristocrats and senators and law makers. Like how Poland was treated by the USSR or how the Ukraine and Belarus SSRs were to the Russian SSR.

Your channel is definitely worth subscribing to

It only makes sense to me that Rome fell many times And I think the fourth crusade was the last Even during the heights of the empire It would splintered and reshaped itself Much like its peoples, customs and religions Today we have this idea of the western world Its definition and borders are changing in our very lifetime

Excellent video. Thank you so much. I was a classics minor in college and always felt like I was being lied to about the fall of Rome because people treated Byzantium as a side note. I love getting some light shed on the topic.

I feel that the east forgot the one favour that the west truly gave them. When greece was conquered their language and culture was put on a pedestal alongside Latin language and culture. When the time came for the east to liberate their fallen brothers there was no such respect given to latin in return

The quantity and quality of your videos are astounding

The final words were iconic.

I often run into histories that describe Justinian as this grand restorer of the Roman world whose resources didn't match his vision. This is an interesting alternate view to consider. I have to admit I've often thought the resources Justinian poured west would have likely been better spent against the Persians.

2:56 so everyone just assumed they lived in a integrated Roman system not realizing it was gone? Just assuming they were autonomous provinces of the Roman state or something?

The real question that might actually give some more insight into the when "Rome fell" conundrum is what it was to be a Roman citizen (both culturally and civically) and how that might have changed over the decades and even centuries. Great video by the way.

I suspect that the "fall" of the Western Roman Empire was not only political but also economic. The devaluation of the currency, the population decline, and other economic trends were long-term trends that must have taken an increasing toll on the idea of Rome as a worthwhile idea. It would be amazing to have a video on that sometime (unless you have already covered this - I'm a new subscriber). This video was riveting. Thank you!

Great topic! I've always thought the Romans were the only ones who had the right to decide when their glory days had gone. To learn they had actually accepted their fall from power and were debating what the final nail in the coffin is super interesting! Not many of the greatest empires in history reflect on themselves in the end, but the Romans, even the proud Romans, did.

"And that's all for sport. In other news today, the Roman Empire fell again and the price of eggs went up fifth week in a row. Now for the latest in weather with Tempestas Lectorem."

Amazing documentary

Amazing video

Justinian was Thracian just like Belisarios. German historian Hieronymus Wolf conied the term Byzantines. Great video man!

Interesting points. I still can't see the barbarian kingdoms as a part of the Roman empire since they clearly limited the power of the imperial realm. Imagine how previous emperors would have dealt with these kingdoms. I can't imagine Aurelian, Trajan, Augustus, etc addressing any of these barbarian states any differently than Justinian. Also, Justinian's birthplace isn't relevant as long as he was born a roman citizen, unlike barbarians who rejected roman citizenship so they could keep their kingdoms intact. There are reasons why Romans strictly prevented barbarians from becoming emperors or possessing imperial powers. It would have created even more political instability. I agree that many Romans in the west didn't think Rome had fallen or at least it would be reunited but it clearly was not the Rome of Trajan or even Majorian anymore. All great things must come to an end.

This video has transformed my thinking.

Very interesting video

"Make Rome Great Again!" - Justinian, probably

Look at me. I am the *Roman* now

Such a great question in this title!

Extremely interesting! Thank you. However I find it hard to understand/ hear it all

From one of your maps, I had to look up if Barcelona was ever the capital of one of the divisions of the Roman empire, and it turns out it was, but for only about 1 year.

I always thought it was 476 in the west and 1453 in the east.

So would that make Zosimus a political prophet, to use the term? Sometimes there are people that exist during a time frame that just seemed to be dialed into what's happening to their culture.

Ever since I learned the nitty gritty details of the wars of Justinian,they always felt more like a Roman civil war to me.

Rome stands, Cartage and Ctesphion crumble

My take, "Rome" fell when the capital was moved to Mediolanium in 286AD. The Empire lasted after that

The Roman Empire may have fell, but Rome has never fallen.

Superb! Thank you!! ;-) ;-) ;-)

And to think Justinian’s propaganda survived into the modern day…

Hi Historian's Craft, I have a question with regards to your earlier video on the Macedonian sarissa. I have a bunch of wacky ideas on how to counter the phalanx, and I wonder if anybody had actually tried them in history. -Trapping the heads of the sarissas/spears, by holding a bucket with very thick armour plating at the bottom (to prevent penetration), or a thick block of wood with a deep hollow in it, and using it to trap the head of the sarissa. I envision a front row of men holding a very long wooden plank with many of these bucket-like thingys set in intervals in it, and using them to trap the heads of the sarissas/spears. -Throwing a thick reinforced and weighted net or very thick wad of cloth to entangle and trap the spear heads. -Somehow finding a way to grab hold of the sarissa/spear shaft and chopping them up with an axe. Maybe by getting axemen to stand a bit back behind the front ranks, and immediately after the sarissa contacts they grab the sarissa and chop off their heads. -Putting thick wooden barricades in front of the front ranks to shield from the spears. -Rolling heavy logs towards the phalanx to disrupt their formation. -Getting the first rank of men to hold logs over their heads, and at the very last moment before contact throw the logs downwards and perpendicularly onto the spear shafts so they angle towards the ground instead. -Getting trained dogs to rush under the spears and nip at their feet to disrupt the formation. -Getting men or boys to crawl under the front forward-facing sarissas and cut off the legs of the first ranks of the phalanx with long scythes. -Getting men to kneel beneath the spears and shoot arrows or sling stones at them. -Getting the whole formation to crouch or lie down at the very last moment so the sarissas pass over their heads, then they can either grab the sarissas or move forward to attack the phalangites. -Getting men to run along the sides of the phalanx spears and chop their spears, or simply just attacking the phalanx from the sides. (Maybe the phalanx had hypaspists standing at their sides to prevent this?)

Excellent and highly apropos question

Couldn't agree more with the conclusion that it's really after Justinian that Rome 'fell' ,or at least when we should start calling it Byzantine. Much more of a clear break point than what went on in 476

I suppose it depended where one lived on the Italian peninsula when you became aware that Rome was falling!

I consider the date of the fall of Rome to be 1453. No state that has direct political connection to ancient Rome exists after that date.

Gidday mate. Have you done anything on Magnus Maximus and how after his fall the Irish/Scotti moved into Wales? Cheers love your work

I guessed from the title that Justinian had something to do with it.

What do you think of dividing Roman History into the following periods: Republic: 509BC-88BC Dictatorship: 88BC-628AD 628AD-1453AD The Second Monarchy

To be fair, how is it that a "barbarian" being "given" a piece of roman land equates to continuity, but a "roman" retaking that land is a break with tradition? If anything at all, that tradition seems self destructive

One question is what about the tax system in "the west" before Justinian? Since we could argue that would be an important part of the state that could lend info into understanding what the west was in the in between period.

Extremely interesting video. I like your point about the 476 fall of Rome being Roman propaganda. It makes me wonder how much of our other established history is propaganda.

Yes but 476AD resulted in a distinct disappearance of the Western Throne from the power system. The empire was gone. Constantinople called all of the shots.

Excellent!!!!!

That feeling when you watch a video and want to like it, but find out it's already liked.

Its still alive. Just it doesnt carry swords anymore it carries bibles and accepts donations instead of tribute.

Like you said, Odoacer and Theodoric were serving as Imperial regents. The latter was sent by Emperor Zeno to take out the former when Odoacer was acting more and more independently and even plotted against the Emperor. Everything changed after Theodorics' death. His daughter Amalasuntha who was pro-Roman became Queen of the Ostrogoths and wanted to put Italy under direct Imperial control. The anti - Roman fraction wanted the actual annexation of Italy by the Goths and murdered her. This was the reason Justinian invaded Italy. Imperial control was restored so yes, Rome did not fall in 476.

Wow, very good lesson here.

Rather than considering religious or political change in the empire as a whole, at least the signs for the decline of Rome as a city in the center of the empire can be identified more precisely: The last use of the Colosseum for games was in 523, which marked the symbolic end of public activity in Rome; and the piercing of the aqueducts during the Gothic wars by Vitiges in 537 marked the end of the infrastructure that made it possible for large populations to live there. The coming of the Justinian plague in 541 finished off whoever remained.

Great points and a lot to agree with. I suspect someone could give a rebuttal video along the lines of Italian tax revenue not flowing into Constantinople and something about Boethius‘ treatment. I think a good debate could be had and won if someone could compile all available evidence of how the Italians felt about their status as Roman’s. Never the less, great to contemplate especially that the Italians often praised the goths and the eastern emperor still adorned their coinage.