The Most Important Date Of Roman History That Almost Nobody Knows: 751 AD

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴 🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus 😉 Or become an official Maiorianus member on KZbin: kzbin.infojoin

[@TheRezro]

Worth to remind that Julius Cezar was native Greek speaker. Greek was a official language of the Rome alongside Latin. Byzantine Empire was not a separate entity then Classical Rome and name serve more as time indicator then anything. Argument that Byzantines speak Greek is more relevant as counter to parts of Empire speaking Germanic languages. Even if French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian languages, undeniably are dialects of Latin.

[@TheRezro]

We should also remember that even after Odoaker Galia was in fact still Roman. Syagrius was in fact Roman Consul, who later form Alliance with Franks. Who after Edict of Caracalla, did have Roman citizenship. Even if they have autonomy from the Empire. Frankish King Clovis I was officially recognized as Roman Consul of Galia. So it wasn't really that weird when Pope ask them for help. There was basically no difference between Early Medieval Frankish Knecht and Late Roman Empire Cataphract. Furthermore later Otton Dynasty was also from Byzantine and after Constantinople fall, title was transferred to Spain ending in hands of Hamburgs. So Rome didn't really fall until Napoleon and even he actually declared himself as The Emperor. We could even argue that European Union is continuation of the same ideas of the Rome.

[@DrWrapperband]

What about Biggus Dicius?

[@ansibarius4633]

​@@TheRezroCaesar spoke Greek, like many educated Romans of his time, but we'll have to assume that Latin was his native language unless proven otherwise.

[@ansibarius4633]

​@@TheRezroGallia was Roman in name rather than in fact, I think, in political terms. The Roman Empire had become a legal fiction in the west by the end of the 5th century.

[@hoonshiming99]

Time stamp at 10:41 for those wondering why 751AD is an important date of Roman history.

[@otwock2]

Thanks, man! You're literally saving my sleeping time. :-)

[@powerarmor9375]

just saying, the context was worth setting up before droppin the event imo🎉

[@robertvermaat2124]

Thanks! Having to suffer through all the intro with the bad AI was tiring...

[@richardlo4867]

​@@powerarmor9375Was it though? The whole nothing changed until something maybe is a bit forced

[@tw8464]

Exactly they make you listen for 20 minutes just to get to the point

[@rangerista3933]

I heard a story recently of Greek troops landing on an island during the Greek-Turkish war, and were met by some children, who asked them "are you Greeks?" "Yes", was the reply, "but aren't you Greeks too?". The children replied "No, we are Romans".

[@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244]

Oh, yes, I see; a whoa-man...

[@aarengraves9962]

I woud have called you smart if this conversation didn't happen in Greek.

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

The term Roman did not determine national identity or ancestry at the time, but citizenship. Roman Emperor Caracalla issued the Antonine Constitution (early 3rd century AD), which granted Roman citizenship to all free men throughout the Roman Empire. A Roman citizen could of Greek, of Israelite, of Armenian, of Georgian heritage etc. The majority of the Byzantines (Eastern Roman citizens), native for centuries in the region of Asia Minor long before the Roman Empire emerged, were of ethnic Greek background. The population in the East retained their pre-existing Hellenic culture and identity. They never vanished from their native lands. That is why Historians made the accurate distinction between the Latin West and the Greek East. Their Roman citizenship had nothing to do with their distinct heritage. A Scottish doesn't stop being Scottish (ethnic identity) because he is British (political identity) and a medieval Greek wasn't any less Greek (ethnic identity) because he was a Roman citizen (political identity). Their citizenship, didn't contradict in any way their distinct ethnic Greek ancestry, determined by race.

[@sijeremy7558]

Many Greeks called themselves “Romans” well into the 18th century.

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

Correct mate. Our Medieval Byzantine heritage is the bridge that connects us right to our legendary ancient Greco-Roman legacy. “Four thousand years of Greek history have produced four Greek heritages, each of which has had an effect on the life of the Greeks in later stages of their history. The Hellenic Greeks received a heritage from the Mycenean Greeks, the Byzantine Greeks received one from the Hellenic Greeks, the Modern Greeks have received one heritage from the Byzantines and a second from the Hellenes.” From the notable book of Arnold Toynbee, prominent English historian; “The Greeks and Their Heritages”, Oxford University Press.

[@user-tb9nr5id5y]

The Byzantine Empire is an artificial designation, but the same could be said for continuing the Roman Empire to 751AD or 1453. The pre 476 Roman state may have started out Roman and then progressively morphed into Latin, Italic and arguably even Mediterranean. Emperors could rule from locations other than Rome. However the constant of Roman governance, the Senate remained in Rome, and Italy was the heart of the Roman Empire well into the 400s. By the end of 476 Italy was no more than nominally part of the Empire. When imperial forces and governance returned it was in the name of a state centered to the east. The Senate survived 476 but stopped directly serving the emperor in the east but instead served Odoacer and then the Ostrogoths. By around 600 the Senate had ceased to function in its former manner. What I like about the term "Eastern Roman Empire" is that it simultaneously acknowledges its continuity with the Roman Empire while also acknowledging its change in focus. Also didn't Venice and at times the Principality of Salerno continue to recognize themselves as a vassel of the Emperor in Constantinople long after 751?

[@palacehaunter5442]

The East lost Roma status after 530 CE

[@telemarketer467]

Read the last speech made by the last Roman emperor, just as Constantinople was about to fall. Chilling. Epic. Thumbs up so we can get lots of people to read it.

[@Adamantos-Elean]

He was so dumb.

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

“Present your shield, swords, arrows, and spears to them, imagining that you are a hunting party after wild boars, so that the impious may learn that they are dealing not with dumb animals but with their lords and masters, the descendants of the Greeks and the Romans”. (Basileus Constantine’s XI Palaiologos speech in front of his Officers before the final siege of Constantinople) George Sphrantzes (1401-1478), prominent Byzantine Greek historian and Imperial Courtier in the service of the Emperor (primary source - The Fall of the Byzantine Empire 1453).

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

We Greeks are very proud of our last Byzantine Emperor, he was a brilliant individual and a brave soldier.

[@TheOrigamiPeople]

Thank you. You bought things up that I had never considered even as a Greek. The Greeks never called themselves Greeks rather Elines or Romei. Most Greeks don’t know why they are called Greek by the rest of the world.The Holy Roman Empire after Charlemagne trying to delegitimise the East from Rome by being called Greek Empire or Byzantine Empire from the founder of Byzantium ,a colonist named Byzas was a new insight you gave me .

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

Even in time of late Roman Republic, Greek colonies of Southern Italy were known as "Magna Graecia". Not sure what Romans included in "Graecia", there were provinces Macedonia, Epirus and Achaia covering most of modern Greece. I suppose they wanted common name denominating predominant ethnicity and culture of the region.

[@liyin9194]

The explanation I heard is that Romans first came into contact with the city state of Graia, so they called everyone who spoke the Hellenic language Greeks. On a similar vein, the entire UK is colloquially called "England" in Mandarin.

[@oliversmith9200]

I love his interpretive excavation's exposure of what have become narrow and inadequate common historical assumptions. What a thinker!

[@TheRezro]

HRE never try separate itself from Byzantine. It was name used purely to avoid confusion as HRE also was Roman. Byzantines did called themselves the Rome and claiming otherwise is pure falsehood. Julius Cezar did speak Greek.

[@dphuntsman]

@@TheRezroDidn’t most cultured Romans at that time speak Greek?

[@hiskakun2276]

Very good video. But I think it should also mention the Iconoclasm controversy. From 726 there was a schism between the Pope in Rome and the Emperors in Constantinople. And the population of Italy were against iconoclasm and sided with the Pope. In the Balkans and Asia Minor there was also opposition, but over there the Emperors could impose his will. The Lombards just took advantage of this rift and conquered Ravena. The Pope, surrounded by the Lombards, preferred to ask help to the Franks, than the “heretics iconoclasts” from Constantinople. I think Iconoclast is very important to explain this split with Italy.

[@zimriel]

I vaguely recall Runciman pointing out that Charlemagne was also an iconoclast, but didn't have the power to enforce it. Also icons although pope Leo III venerated them, and were still important in south Italy (always Greek) weren't ever that big a deal to the wider West, simply not worth fighting about.

[@tylerellis9097]

Only in northern Italy. Sardinia and Sicily were indifferent to it, and it wasn’t the biggest issue. The Byzantines inability to protect Ravenna and northern Italy while demanding any sort of tribute or authority was the main issue. The Pope turned to the Franks because the Emperor had proven he could not protect the Papacy any longer

[@hiskakun2276]

@@tylerellis9097 I’m not sure if it was inability or just unconcern. Constantine V was famous as a good general, archiving victories against the Arabs and the Bulgars. However he didn’t even send an army to Italy, just tried diplomacy. Probably he thought it was a waste of ressources to try to regain control of a hostile province due to Iconoclast’s policies.

[@ThomasEPeters]

​@@hiskakun2276Wasn't Constantine V the emperor who established the theme system? A system that had to be created as the empire was actually out of money to pay them and had to settle the debts with land. And upon settling on those plots the army became extremely unwilling to fight overseas. Eventually a new full time army was formed with the creation of the Tagma. But there was a period of several decades where the thematic troops would rather march on Constantinople and change the emperor than fight overseas.

[@hiskakun2276]

@@ThomasEPeters No, the theme system was established in the mid VII century, probably during the reign of Constans II (641-668) a century ago. It was Constantine V (741-775) who created the Tagmata. His armies reached the Danube when fighting the Bulgars and cities like Melitene in the Caliphate. The period that you talk when the thematic troops would change the emperor is probably the 20 years anarchy (695-717).

[@miramax6165]

" Our state is Roman, our genus is Greek" Anna Komnene, daughter of Emperor Alexios I (r. 1081-1118) in her book " The Alexiad".

[@ansibarius4633]

@@miramax6165 Where in the Alexiad does she say this? I was interested but couldn't find the phrase in the English translation. Would have expected to find it in the prologue maybe, but it wasn't there.

[@miramax6165]

Sorry, I can't remember where exactly. It's been awhile, like some years..

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

Considering that Anna Komnene regarded the crusaders as uneducated barbarians and that she held those who came to her father's aid in contempt for their actions against the Empire after they looted various conquests and failed to return to the Basileus' many of the lands they promised to return to him, it’s more than evident where the Byzantine’s genous descended from. Anna Komnene is the only female Greek historiographer of her era and historians are keen to believe that her style of writing owes much to her being a woman. Despite including herself in the historiography and the other qualities that make her style vastly different from the typical historiography of the era, Anna Komnene's Alexiad has been seen as a “straightforward” history.

[@giannisgiannopoulos791]

@Theodoros_Kolokotronis Complicated times. The schism of 1054 played also its role

[@JosephSaintClair]

Proud to have traces of Anna Komnene’s bloodline in my veins :) long fractured lineage and reduced to commoners over time !! Still 💪

[@oliversmith9200]

I love his interpretive excavation's exposure of what have become narrow and inadequate common historical assumptions. What a thinker!

[@muiscnight]

The Germans thought the east were just Greeks, and they were the true romans. The layers of irony is never ending.

[@VangelisMourelatos]

Spot on my friend. I wish there were nowadays some Greek historians who could understand our history as well as you do..

[@JaneHufford]

Y-dna can fill in the cracks for way back in the past!

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

There are my friend, check out Anthony Kaldellis a prominent Historian and Byzantinist, Professor of Classics at the University of Chicago. As he brilliantly states in two of his notable books; “Byzantium was a Roman empire in legal and institutional terms, but its soul was Greek. The language, culture, and religion of the empire were deeply Hellenic, and by the later centuries, its people saw themselves as inheritors of the Greek, not Roman, legacy”. “Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium”. “The Byzantines called themselves Romans (Rhomaioi) because they considered themselves the legitimate continuation of the Roman Empire. However, over time, as the empire became more Hellenized, they also came to embrace their Greek cultural heritage, resulting in a unique identity that was both Roman in terms of state and law, and Greek in language and culture”. “The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome”.

[@Idkgurl123]

I am Greek and my mind was blown when I realized that in many other countries people aren’t taught that the Roman Empire ended in 1453. Or they think that the Greeks were put in the freezer after the Hellenistic period and came back in the 19th century, what do you think we were doing all these centuries? 😅😂

[@eurotrashmonkey8257]

I don't know about other western nations, but the US quality of education has been going down the drain. When I was in college a fair amount of people didn't even know who Stalin was, let alone anything to do with Rome or Greece. They only teach kids to pass standardized testing now and skip history that might be deemed "offensive".

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

Best comment in the section so far 👏👏 😆

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

What you think is not necessarily aligned with what other people think mate. Most likely, it’s the other way around, since Greek people have been native in these lands for millenniums.

[@ansibarius4633]

@@Idkgurl123 Yes, true. But most people will have blank spaces in their 'Head Atlas of World History', I guess, regarding specific countries, cultures and ethnicities, even if they are interested in history. To some the question doesn't even occur. Also, in most countries education tends to focus on those elements of history that were formative for one's own society, which does make sense, to be honest; and the Roman Empire ceased being a primary force in Western European history with the demise of the western empire. I was taught in the 1980s that there still was an emperor in the East until 1453, but it's perceived as more or less a sidenote to the main stream of western history.

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

@ansibarius Interesting comment mate, all true what you mention. I would only argue that the history of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire is more or less a sidenote to the main stream of western history, given the fact that there are numerous prestigious Faculties and Seats of Byzantine Studies, in renowned western Universities.

[@herobrinesblog]

To think Charlemagne was born just 3 years before, 748, and would claim to be roman emperor... Imagine Charlemagne really did manage to marry a easter roman empress, as was once planned, and had connected the 2 territories. No split church, no split in cultures, no 50 hundred kingdoms in europe, etc

[@andrelegeant88]

The Germanic portion would still have been split up under their inheritance rules. Remember, those rules weren't stupid they just weren't conducive to forming large states. They exist for a world where the state has little role, and so the important thing is preventing violence among the king's children over what's essentially a private inheritance.

[@sreckom92]

This combined empire would have collapsed faster than the actual Carolingian Empire did.

[@filmbuffo5616]

that marriage would not have been a stretch, as Charlemagne was notorious for the number of women he kept around he scandalized the monks in his administration by his randy nature

[@tylerellis9097]

People who bring this up are dumb ngl. Both monarchs were aged when the idea was supposedly proposed with Irene childless and infertile. This doesn’t unite anything.

[@waltuh6194]

I feel like people who bring this up put their desire over what actually likely would’ve happened. Both Charlemagne and Irene were past their prime ages for children. And as soon as one of them kicked the bucket a civil war would’ve broken the empire apart if not earlier. I also doubt Irene would have been actually serious about such an idea. Years earlier her son Constantine VI (who she killed for the throne) was actually proposed to marry Charlemagne’s daughter Rotrude and it was Irene who rejected it.

[@roelmendoza7638]

The iconoclastic heresy played a big part in the estrangement of Rome from the eastern Empire. Southern Italy and the area of Greece was part of the jurisdiction of the Roman patriarchate until Leo III transferred them to that of Constantinople. The bishop of Thessalonica was a papal vicar before that.

[@filmbuffo5616]

Islam and Judaism forbid any images in their houses of worship to this day I am told

[@kitkat47chrysalis95]

if they could see what has become of today, they would think the iconoclastic to be holy brothers

[@Zhongda95]

Finally someone who says it how it is. I'm tired of seeing so many youtubers buying into the "Byzantine" narrative that it triggers me every time. Even in schools indeed, we Greeks are taught medieval history from a "Byzantine" perspective, so that we develop a national identity separate from the Roman one, while even in the 19th century, the christians who rebelled against the Ottomans and created the modern Greek state called themselves "Romioi", referring to their Roman cultural heritage, which was essentially a word synonymous to "Greek".

[@nikhtose]

True, but the creation of the modern Greek state required a definitive break from the medieval and theocratic "Roman" identity to one founded on modern democratic and, later, republican principles. For this reason "Hellas" was correctly revived, and the state institutions identified with terms from classical antiquity, e.g. "dimokratía" and "boule."

[@Adamantos-Elean]

I thought you were Hellenes? Ellines?

[@ansibarius4633]

@@Adamantos-Elean That name was revived in the early 19th century in an attempt to reshape Greek identity along classical lines, as a distinct people with a distinct contribution to history, which apparently inspired the political and intellectual elite of the time more than the idea of a post-classical Roman citizenship did. Which I find understandable.

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

@Zhongda95 Great comment mate. Byzantine Greeks preserved and delivered our Ancient Greek legacy and blended it majestically with our Christian Orthodox tradition. That is in fact our heritage as modern Greeks. “During a time when things looked particularly bleak for the Revolution, Greek General Theodore Kolokotronis (pre-eminent leader of the Greek War of Independence) asked the British Admiral Hamilton's advice on what the best course of action would be. Hamilton responded (quite truthfully) that the most prudent thing to do would be to negotiate the Greek surrender with Great Britain guaranteeing for their lives. “That can never be” responded the General, “We've already pledged Freedom or Death ! Our Basileus (Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos) was slain, he signed no treaty ! Ever since his Guard was always at War with the Turks and two forts remained forever indomitable”. Hamilton was baffled by this statement. What Basileus, what King? The one who fell in battle 400 years ago? “What Royal Guard, what forts are you talking about ?” he asked. Kolokotronis responded “The Guard of our Basileus are those they call Klephts, the forts are Mani and Souli and the mountains”. Then Hamilton spoke no more..“ Excerpt from the notable book “Memoirs of Theodoros Kolokotronis”.

[@descendantofgreeksandroman2505]

@@Adamantos-Elean modern greeks are descentants of greeks and romans.

[@dhm7815]

A history professor at Kent State University defined The Middle Ages as "Some 1000 years." There is a lot of disagreements about the start and end dates but there is wide agreement that it was 1000 years long. So use a start date of 476 AD and an end date of 1492 and there you have it.

[@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244]

Yes, with or without the Eastern Empire, Italy was in a state of siege with only a few safe cities after 476. That is not the definition of an empire. The Eastern Empire was already struggling to survive by 500, due to Christian infighting, etc.

[@IonutPaun-lp2zq]

@@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244 No, it did not struggle to survive by 500, it thrived until the plague of Justinian,

[@sijeremy7558]

Traditional end date of most western Historians for the Middle Ages is actually 1453 with the fall of Constantinople- ironically. I tend to agree with this date because it looks like it encouraged the “age of sail” and the Renaissance due to the new insecurity of the land routes of the “Silk Road.”

[@davepx1]

410-1453!

[@ML-oq8cu]

Antiquity ends with the fall of the western roman empire while the middle-age ends with the fall of the eastern roman empire. Quite fitting.

[@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244]

The reason that historians consider the end of the Western Roman Empire to be 476 is because there was no Emperor and a German (Odacer) was crowned King of Italy, refusing the title of Caesar as it was meaningless. There was no longer a Roman Emperor in Rome or Ravena. Rome had no empire to rule. No power actually existed because there was no army. There was no government but the Pope and his bishops, who were far from concerned with armies and trade at the time. The claims that the Eastern Empire conquered Italy are fairly bogus since the religious schism had already occurred. In 430, a short war between Constantinople and Rome saw the Roman Catholics murder 60,000 Greek Christians in the Eastern realm (Bulgaria). Far from the only sacking, most of the damage Alaric and the Visigoths caused in 410 was never repaired. Christians tore down pagan statues and temples. In 500, a Frankish ally Clovis, defended Rome. In 732, another Frank, Charles Martel (The Hammer) defeated the Muslims near Toulouse. Rome could do nothing to stop the Muslims, who took over Spain. But it was a remnant of Visigoths in the north of Spain that formed the resistance and the seed of the eventual Reconquista. The Western Roman Empire became ineffectual militarily long before 751, due to repeated sackings and a loss of civil order due to the preoccupation of Christians with the Coming Judgement, and every event was seen as a sign of The End. Constantinople was hardly a strong empire at that time. Only alliances with the Jewish King of Khazaria kept the Arab Muslims from sweeping into Anatolia and the back door to Europe. The Western Empire quickly shrank from its expanse in the 5th century as it sought to occupy Rome, to an empire with its territory reduced to that which was within quick defense from the city walls. Source - Edward Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Mathew Kneale, "The Seven Sackings of Rome." While it is true that the Roman Empire never actually "fell," It faded out, actually. Repeated sackings reduced it to poverty and laid it open to marauders and conquest with only a few cities remaining safe. This is not an empire. The moment that it ceased to be ruled by an emperor is by definition when the Roman Empire ended, 476.

[@vsgshdg2627]

I think Sebastian is so conformable with what he knows that he can make these very interesting and persuasive assertions and videos that go into depth about his thesis. Its part of the reason I think so many of us keeping coming back to this, quiet excellent channel. Sebastian would have made an excellent Professor of History and probably should write a book at some point.

[@efstratiosfilis2290]

You are 100% correct! Plus the "Holy Roman Empire" which was neither holy nor Roman was the first Reich.

[@manwiththeredface7821]

On one hand, history is written by the victors (i.e. the naming of the Byzantyne Empire). On the other hand, it's probably the biggest case of the Theseus paradox. Just like when you replace a ship's components one by one and you ask yourself if it's the same ship in the end after all, one has to ask: where does one nation end and another begin? A Western European latin speaking small kingdom in Italy with multiple gods transformed into a continent spanning christian republic and ended up as a Greek speaking Middle Eastern / Eastern European empire. Are we sure that these could be considered one and the same nation? Would Romulus and Remus look at Constantinople being surrounded in 1453 and think "these aren't ours"?

[@sawhtoo6778]

For me. It's still the same ship but not the state that Theseus rode. I live in a city which was once a capital of a short-lived empire. So many have change. Not even small parts of old city remains except moats. But still the same city but not the same state.

[@mavrospanayiotis]

Problem with byzantines is that the ship was changed completely, using different shapes, different types of wood, different style of decorations. Already during Justinian reign there was the idea of a failing "restauratio Imperii" (restoration of the Empire, wich means they considered the original one ended). The new official language (greek), the new capital (Constantinople), the new ruling system (cesaropapism), the disappearance of SPQR (legal disappearance of a Roman People in wich name issuing the edicts), the renewal of laws negating the gods wich were the identity of the Roman People (Corpus Iuris) etc. are changes wich doesn't restore the original ship but change it into a completely different one. Though the process was very long and probably even that we consider nowadays roman empire wasn't really that roman at all. The process started with the official Dominis et Deus (Aurelian) and the last emperor chosen by the Senate (Tacitus Augustus); these are two signs of the definitve loss of power by "true" traditional order of senators and the loss of any real political role of roman people... from there on any subject was "roman", not as real citizen but as "human property" of the autocratic power (master and god). This process lasted almost two centuries, with Justinian it was mostly accomplished.

[@adrianwebster6923]

⁠@@mavrospanayiotisThat's similar to arguing that the UK isnt English anymore because much of the Norman Frenchness of William I is gone. The language and customs of the court have mostly changed but you can still draw a clear line of succession and continuity of government since 1066. Evolution does not negate the continuity and there was continuity until 1453.

[@mavrospanayiotis]

​@adrianwebster6923 i am convinced of a complete continuity between British and American Empires, wich held much more cultural closeness than Roman Empire and Byzantine. The radical differences started even before the political division with Theodosius, within the same religion (wich wasn't roman anymore and later brought to a radical disavowal of the religious-juridical roots of the Roman Empire). Consider that Roman citizenship had almost lost its meaning since Caracalla, it was a milotary-financial issue to draw money and keep the army functioning: anybody was "romaios", being jew, pannonian, german (for those living within its borders), greek etc. The erosion of the value of roman citizenship conti ued after Constantine, when the legal idea of issuing laws in the name of Senate and Roman People disappeared and later on it was definitely demolisched by officializing the Emperor as "master", then owner, of the Empire and its inhabitants.

[@ansibarius4633]

@@manwiththeredface7821 Maybe that's not a bad comparison. The 'ship of state' changed, but gradually, preserving its name and some of its original elements; but it was owned and manned by a different crew, let's say a family company from another town, with needs, tastes and ambitions different from the people who had built it and first took it to sea, or their descendants, and it was changed and 'revamped' accordingly over the course of time. Still, it was technically the same ship and the owners did have their legal paperwork in order. But they had little to do with Theseus and his crew, and they wouldn't even have understood his language.

[@Shuayb369]

The most important date is "obviously" 753 BCE

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

There is a difference between "the most important date" and "the most important date no one knows about". Reading comprehension aside, I would agree 753BC would be among the most important.

[@Blastoice]

Its up to interpretation. Not a single date can be viewed as the most important. Its all about opinions

[@StarterOffical-Jousha-lf6ig]

​@@FrancisFjordCupolawe don't definitely know Rome was founded in 753 BCE or not

[@mayachico9766]

BC. Not BCE hehe

[@oskarvomhimmel6936]

"BC" bro...Be Grateful to Christianity and above all Christ...otherwise you'd be sacrificing goats and children and virgin cows for the Sun comes out every day...😎

[@giannisgiannopoulos791]

Congratulations, and this is your MOST important video! Historians usually use Procopius who acknowledged that the Emperor in the West fell thus the West also fell. However, the West was recovered by Justinian I (not Greek); it did NOT actually fall. Yes, It is a matter of fact that the Romans of Italy complained that the "Greeks" brought disaster to Italy after the Gothic wars because that left many cities, the countryside, and the hearts of the people to rubble, but it was a very brutal war. Everyone should know that at the time, the Greeks were (Eastern) Romans, and for those who are stuck mentioning the Greek language in the East, I must remind them that the Greek was back then the international language ** something like English today**, a language of prestige the Romans themselves were speaking since the age of the Republic. The Greek language was not considered alien to the Romans, they were very familiar with it, the lingua franca in the East. Indeed, in 751 Rome ceased to be Roman, not in 476. The donation of Papin which created the Papal State and made Constantine V furious was sealed by the King of Franks Charles I, and for this the Bishop of Rome crowned him "Roman" Emperor in 800, something that Constantinople never recognized of course. Since then, the Germans began to cultivate the narrative of the "Empire of the Greeks" in the East in order to gain legitimacy. (Highly indicative of the "nervousness" between the two courts was the letter of Basil I to the grandson of Charlemagne, Lothair I, mentioning "You will never be Romans".) Since after this, the Roman Empire had to be confined in the South of Italy, I could also propose 1071 when the last Roman soldier had to abandon Bari and Italy for the last time under the pressure of the Normans. They would never return to Italy. Two disasters in the same year, the other was Manzikert.

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

One of the most thrilling historical novels set in the Byzantine Greek Empire during the last Siege of Constantinople, is “The Dark Angel” (original title Johannes Angelos), of prominent Finnish writer, Mika Waltari. Truly epic.

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

The novel, written in a diary format, was inspired by a real diary by Niccolò Barbaro (a Venetian nobleman and author of an eyewitness account), describing the 1453 siege of Constantinople.

[@tonycarrozza8311]

As a southern Latin Italian, I completely agree with you - it now starts to make sense as the Holy Romans emerged. Thanks for your great work!!!

[@Leptospirosi]

Actually no: it makes non sense and it has none. As a southern Italian you should know.

[@tonycarrozza8311]

@Leptospirosi why does it not make sense?

[@Bronxguyanese]

One thing I noticed that when Eastern Roman Empire lost Latin speaking regions of former western Roman Empire, the eastern Empire started to accept more Hellenic culture and language. I hope historians and academics can pinpoint the end of late antiquity and rise of early middle ages. Don't forget that the Byzantines were still in Southern Italy until they were pushed out by the French speaking Gallo Romanized and Frankishized Normans who pushed the Byzantines out if Italy.

[@zimriel]

It gets better. Constantine IV moved his whole court to Syracuse in Sicily, leaving his son Constantine in charge of Constantinople. Thus making the empire neither Roman nor Byzantine in the AD 660s. We now know this "Constantine IV" as Constans II and have given the "IV" to the prince, who succeeded him.

[@tylerellis9097]

@@zimrielHe didn’t officially change the capital he merely moved to Syracuse to administer and control the failing Western Provinces. His Son was CoEmperor too so there was still an Emperor in Constantinople regardless. Besides our source on the matter, Theophanes, says he Supposedly planned on moving the capital back to Rome not staying in Syracuse.

[@giglidi9890]

Always new information from this chanel. When you think you know much about the romans ,a new video pops out

[@Alexander753.]

753 BC to 753 AD. WOW! 🎉

[@giulioluzzardi7632]

About time Gibbons fall of the Roman Empire was updated. Have you written a book yet? As a teacher I would consider this channel for educational purposes from 11 year olds on. Great job...keep up the grand work.

[@RT-mn2pb]

Thanks for another fascinating session about ancient Rome, with stories and detail you just never get in academic history classes. By the way, my wife and I have named you our official "Rome Guy". That's what we call you, Rome Guy. Because you provide the very best information and perspective on Ancient Rome. Thank you so much.

[@cjraymond8827]

I think the backlash to the 476 date is now gone too far. Yes, average life in Italy didn't change much until the Gothic Wars 59 years later, but there is a historic importance to that date as it truly was the end of the line of emperors going back to Augustus in the west. Yes, the eastern empire lived on and did so until 1453. However, as you mention, the Byzantines (who called themselves Romans until the 15th century despite the very Greek nature of their civilization) treated Italy and North Africa as conquered lands to be exploited with heavy taxes. Rome used to rule the east, after Justinian this relationship was reversed. The Byzantines devastated Italy in that war of conquest, and they only held on to much of it for a short time before the Lombards took most of it. I question your interpretation of that map, too, where you show the Lombards ruling the vast majority of Italy's mainland yet you claim the reverse. But soon enough, Rome and the rest of Italy would be lost forever. Byzantine rule in Italy was a dead cat bounce of their imperial power. Also, though Justinian was a native Latin speaker, he ended the tradition of naming consuls. Heraclius then made Greek the official language of the empire by the 7th century. Another thing also stands out, which is that Heraclius changed the title of Roman Emperor from Caesar Augustus to Basileus. This just illustrates that the eastern, or Byzantine, Empire was very distinct from the Roman Empire of antiquity. And Syagrius and Nepos's rump states don't qualify as a continuation of the Empire. They were small fragments quickly overwhelmed by invasions. In sum, 476 is a date that really does have significance in what is a very nuanced history when it comes to the "fall of the Roman empire."

[@andrelegeant88]

It wasn't the end of the line though. There was one emperor again, sitting in Constantinople. The same happened with Constantine. The Roman imperium was not a strict hereditary monarchy. You're thinking of it in terms of medieval kingship.

[@Lira-j4g]

First of all you copy and pasted the first half of your long statement from other sources. Secondly, it was the end of the western roman empire not the whole empire. You are a butthurt german who is jealous of the east because gauls lived in the west and just like now are pathetic at fighting. Thirdly, you can say “they acted different” about anyone. America is different than they were in revolution and civil war eras but nobody says it isn’t america. You have BIAS and it shows

[@tylerellis9097]

Heraclius did not change the language to Greek that’s a myth. He did adopt Basileus but it did not replace Augustus nor Imperator and the rest of his dynasty bore the regal title of Flavius Imperator Augustus. Basileus doesn’t even appear on Byzantine coins till 100 years later.

[@hiskakun2276]

@@cjraymond8827 You said Rome used to rule the east, and after Justinian this relationship was reversed. That’s wrong. The relationship was reversed from Constantine I the Great. From him, Constantinople ruled the empire (which he intended to call New Rome).

[@ansibarius4633]

@@hiskakun2276 Eastern ascendancy still took some time to crystallize though, with the city of Rome only gradually becoming of less political, cultural and ideological importance. And the western empire, even if weakened, was still ruled from the Italian heartland throughout the 5th century.

[@Z12IT]

Very good historical processing! It meets my historical knowledge and perceptions. Gratias tibi et dii tecum

[@alexkalish8288]

Excellent little history lesson - I confess I did not know the date - Ravenna has to be one of my favorite little cities - the building are so very well preserved. A poster of Julian's court & 'Maximianus' from S. Vitali hangs at my place in Taos. The style is very late Roman and a different feeling than in Istanbul. Bad conditions in the 6th century from volcano's and plagues - amazing they kept the civilization at all - but they almost did not -

[@davidllewis4075]

Please read this as an intended compliment: I have never heard anyone approach this subject with such passion.

[@bulumacpaul8917]

A refreshing episode about the Romanness in the East and in post-476 Italy, which, of course, never ceased to exist until the very end! Fantastic work! 👏 Only one small, but important detail: the romans from the east continued to "call themselves" Roman is the actual narrative of the modern "byzantinists" historians. As we all know, they didn't just called themselves, they WERE Romans! As the eastern ennemies (Arabs, Turks) called and viewed them until the very end (beeing immunes to the western agenda).

[@Najahaje-r9u]

Thank you; you brought up many good points. In what passed as education in my school, after 476 AD the Roman Empire was forgotten & attention shifted west to the barbarian kingdoms. It was a revelation to me to later read about the Gothic War and Justinian's reconquista of the 6th century. Perhaps because we are creatures with 2 eyes, 2 hands, etc, we tend to think of things as pairs. A more accurate way of thinking about the Roman empire might be: Roman Empire, then (by the end of the 5th century) Eastern Roman Empire, and then only after the Muslim conquests had stripped away so much territory, as "Byzantine".

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

“The Byzantines called themselves Romans (Rhomaioi) because they considered themselves the legitimate continuation of the Roman Empire. However, over time, as the empire became more Hellenized, they also came to embrace their Greek cultural heritage, resulting in a unique identity that was both Roman in terms of state and law, and Greek in language and culture”. From the notable book “The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome” by Anthony Kaldellis, Professor of Classics at the University of Chicago.

[@palacehaunter5442]

"Hellianised" lol. East were never romans. They destroyed all the hellianised temples from 4tg to 6tg centuries CE. That is a usurped Empire known as Byzantium

[@rbeaton6902]

Best explanation I have ever heard on a topic I always wondered about. Absolutely brilliant. Thank you so much.

[@WordsFromPeter]

Thank you for uploading great content. I love late Roman history, and I'm always so happy when I see a new video pop up.

[@agenthunk5070]

Thank you for this video. Very Educational.

[@Leptospirosi]

For context, Heraclius is the first "Byzantine" Emperor, because he made Greek the official language of the Empire, and from then on, Latin became the ecclesiastical language off the Roman Bishop and his court. Giustinian was still Roman and the author of the Roman Law corpus that is at the heart of most of the Western modern nation. Mavrikos already had published his Strategikon in Greek only, but it was not an "Offical" law of the state. About Lobards not being able to "conquer" the via Flamina, that is false: Ravenna and the Pentapolis was just a small strip of terrain on the Adriatic coast, but the forests in Umbria and in the Marche, were just that, barely under control of anyone except the bandits that roamed it; the same was true about the Padus Plane, were the Via Emilia was barely in working order and swampy terrain made the lowlands uninhabitable. Via Flamina was just the road that was used to link Rome and Ravenna, but posed no strategic significance for anyone. After Rothari, the Byzantines hold no real control over the peninsula except for the the Islands and the heel of the boot, but under Grimoald, Constans II lost even that. After Gregorius Magnus, the Roman church posed itself under the protection of the Merovingians, and the only thing that really held the lombards form an All out war, that they would have most probably won given the problems Byzantium was having, was Commerce: this is the time when Venice started rising as a separate entity and the lombard dukes became quite rich through their contacts with the est, at least compared with anyone else in Europe. An average high ranking Duke, at the times of Liutprand was richer then Charles Martel, to give a context to the meaning. The only real foothold of the Byzantines (and YES! they were Greeks!)were in Apulia, Calabria Sicilia, already occupied by the Berbers at the end of the VII century. The Byzatine held no control over any part of Italy until Basilus started putting the empire together and later Nikephoros rebuilt the imperial might, but these were Greek Emperor in a Greek Empire: even in the still greek controlled areas, Greek was the official Language, not Latin. The Italian people, already in the late VII century considered themselves Lombards, not Romans, except in the cities of Rome, Neapolis, Bari and Apulia and Ravenna. Latin was the official language of the Lombard kingdom, as it was in France and Spain, but it was a fully germanized kingdom, with anything Roman in it. For all purposes, the Roman Empire in Italy collapsed in 565 AD and never came back. Plenty of documents redacted by Gastalds report witnesses with bith Roman and Lombard names, living in the same territory, being subject to levy and calling themselves Lombards. I live in Rimini and I have studied extensively the history of where I live: just because you are a fan of the Roman Empire, that does not make it alive in the VII century any more.

[@tylerellis9097]

Heraclius did not change the official language to Greek that’s a myth. The Empire did not have an official language but it was Justinian who changed the language of law in the east from Latin to Greek.

[@fegeleindux3471]

Well, I lived in that Roman port (now a mass tourist destination for Eastern Europeans) too for like 16 years (10 years ago) but I don't agree and I'm convinced that what happened in 1204 was a disgrace that destroyed the Roman state and the damage that the Latin Christians have done was far greater than what the Turks did later. The Eastern Roman Empire was the Christian Greek speaking (in some regions even Syriac and Armenian) Roman state with Roman Institutions, Roman Law, Roman political customs (frequent coups done by generals and usurpations) and a high degree of literacy. You don't have to be Latin to be considered a Roman after the 400s (that includes Syrians, Berbers and Armenians), it's true that the Empire or State was different from what it was 400 years before but even the Western Latin half was significantly different (and much more similar to the East) from what it was 400 years before. The Italian Renaissance was heavly (not exclusively but still) influenced by Byzantine scholars who brought with them many Greek Pagan and Christian classics that the Eastern Romans preserved these works (the "Latins" did preserve Latin texts but the Greek ones were lost in the West with some exceptions in Ireland with figures like the incredible Philosopher John Scotus Eriugena who translated many Greek works) and if I'm not mistaken the last Byzantine philosopher Gemistos Pletho is buried in Rimini (his bodies was stolen by one of the city's Lords that I can't remember now). The word Byzantine might still be useful as it's a convenient word to use to indicate the Greek speaking Eastern Roman Empire or State that existed for another 1100 years.

[@constantius4654]

Thank you for another wonderful analysis and the knowledge and joy you give to all those fascinated by the immortal Roman empire.

[@whoisj]

out on a limb here, but I'm gonna go with the founding of the Roman Republic in 509 BC as the most significant. stuff that happened 1,200 years later was important too.

[@paulcossu8107]

The Roman Empire lost Egypt and the Levant to the Umayyads, who, were not Muslims, but Anti-Trinitarian Christians. The big switch didn’t happen until the early 800s. If you know, you know.

[@napoleonfeanor]

Isn't Byzantine a much later word than calling it Greek Kingdom? Personally, I think we shouldn't insist on a specific year but talk about periods. My personal most important date would have been the mythical foundation AUC.

[@dphuntsman]

Wow; put a whole new perspective on that entire period of history for me. Thank you!

[@progrockdocs]

The quality of your videos gets better and better. Fantastic channel. I would love to see you comment on the modern day parallels between the fall of Rome and how it is mirrored across Europe today.

[@BonanzaRoad]

Your information and interpretation of history is very profound and compelling. I urge you to consider compiling your scripts into a book about the late Roman Empire. You will probably find a very healthy market and you already have a head start with all of the detailed lectures in your years of videos.

[@GStolyarovII]

At last, this is the video that I have been waiting for! I have maintained for years that the Roman Empire in the West truly ended in 751, when the Roman Emperors finally and permanently lost control over the city of Rome. Hopefully this video will help to shed light on nearly three centuries of the Roman Empire’s history, which are all too often neglected. Likely one key explanation for this neglect is the scarcity of historical records during the 7th and 8th centuries, when the destruction and deterioration of the infrastructure of civilization led to fewer scholars or other literate people being around to document events. But that period of time needs immensely more study, based on whatever records can be found, to truly enable us to understand how and why the Roman Empire in the West withered away - despite holding on for three centuries longer than commonly thought. As for the Holy Roman Empire, I side with Voltaire when he rightly observed that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.

[@galidornII]

14:32 was going to make similar comment here but your said it. I do believe it was intentionally used to displace greco-roman to make the greeks sound more foreign and religious power of catholics historically slander the orthodox to write themselves as the foundational original institutional center of the early church. not big on religion but it seems very important here as it altered the our understanding of history into a persistent fictional ecclesiastical narrative and away from the truth. greeks went from being the foundations of western thought being treated as eastern, Asiatic decadent effeminate & foreign and the term byzantine is meant to rewrite them out of foundations of the middle ages by the only people keeping records in the west, monks and catholic church 'scholars'.

[@jonathan.palfrey]

When the Roman Empire ended depends on your definition of the term ‘Roman Empire’. There are many different ways of defining it, and therefore many different end dates. For example, if you define the Roman Empire as an empire whose capital city was Rome, you could say that it ended in 408 when the capital moved to Ravenna.

[@TA-dg6tf]

What a awesome video. You have cleared up so many misconceptions that I had. Thanks so much for sharing your expertise

[@sijeremy7558]

Excellent video! I agree. I was always fascinated by the Exarchates of Ravenna and Carthage and their significance and felt their influence was underplayed. Western Historians tend to grossly underestimate the Mediterranean world of the 6th-8th centuries and just how thriving it was. There is also evidence that likely the last lineal native Latin speakers (those that didn’t speak it natively in a supplanted community later) lived into the 8th century. Apparently Latin had a fast death too- for it continued strongly well into the 7th century but died really quickly- it didn’t just slowly erode and peter out over time.

[@henriquereisjr6771]

Fun fact: 751 AD was also important to China and the East! The Battle of Talas between the Tang Dynasty of China and the Abbasid Caliphate shaped the cultural and technological exchange between East and West. While it marked the end of Chinese expansion into Central Asia, it also paved the way for one of the most revolutionary innovations to spread: paper-making technology. Captured Chinese artisans shared their knowledge with the Abbasids, who introduced paper to the Islamic world. From there, it eventually reached Europe, sparking advancements in communication, science, and education. A single battle changed the way humanity shared ideas!

[@Traderjoe]

If we think about what modern politics and culture are doing with “cancellation”, we are today rewriting history and minimizing impacts of tradition and practices and trying to hide aspects of our history. And if those cancellations take root, the behavior and history of what made our modern world would become unknown to future generations of people who want to know about the past. Think about how Columbus is regarded today as a colonizer and reaper of destruction to native people of the Americas. In 200 years his legacy will be remembered as a terrible incident. But, if nobody ever came to the Americas from Europe, surely the Asians and Slavic people would eventually have colonized it and the world would be a very different place today. Did bad things happen? Sure. Were my ancestors enslaved by the Roman’s? Probably. Did the Roman’s wipe out lots of ethic types in Europe? Certainly. Certainly all of our ancestors have suffered at some point. Hell, I suffered as a child in the 1970’s. Do I resent it? Or have I grown from it and remember it as a life lesson? It’s a choice as to what to hold onto as a flag of honor or shame.

[@Matoshewbreadst]

Excellent video. Excellent points. I submit that 476 has been maintained longer than can be justified to link up with 1300 years to 1776.

[@Gundus1000]

Yes, the arches, aquaducts and buildings are still there, but is the Roman Empire still part of Europe today..?

[@Lira-j4g]

Greece

[@drrandomk]

I still feel like 27 BC was a more significant year in the history of Rome

[@tedicoroma]

Very nice video, I totally agree with everything. Just a little integration: The Flaminia Way wasn’t completely under control of Romans. The central part of it was taken by the lombard Duchy of Spoletium, so to avoid it Romans had to use the Amerina Way that in Centre-North Italy linked to the Flaminia to Ariminum and then Ravenna. Flaminia wasn’t a very safe journey for a Roman traveler in VI, VII and VIII century 😂 I appreciate very much your work, go on! Greetings from Rome, Italy 😉

[@davidkardos2794]

Thank you for this video. What a fantastic discovery ! I have never heard about this event in 751. So what has changed ? What generated the darkness for the dark middle ages ? The conquerors killed the teachers ? Or killed the merchants ? Why started the darkness ? What created the loss of the civilisation ??

[@MarianLuca-rz5kk]

Roman Civilisation fell in 313 AD , by the Edict of Constantine the Great Traitor of Rome.

[@jamestwine3591]

Very interesting analysis and 'revisionist' history. Good work.

[@TheManCaveYTChannel]

What part is revisionist?

[@jamestwine3591]

@@TheManCaveYTChannel that the roman empire had no history after 476

[@TheManCaveYTChannel]

@@jamestwine3591 ahhh got it.

[@tylerellis9097]

@@jamestwine3591Modern academia teaches that the Byzantines were Roman so how is this revisionist

[@daveweiss5647]

That sounds like a very good date for the end of antiquity, date of change from eastern Rome to Byzantine, etc...

[@tylerellis9097]

Disagree, the actual changes had already occurred by the reign of Leo III. Rome separating had no effect on the wider Roman polity like the already done switch to iconoclasm, new Greek law code, final lost of Africa and acceptance as an Anatolian based empire.

[@oskarvomhimmel6936]

Great points my man...I'd say Rome lives on even today, it is everything which derived from it, mainly the "West" which would include ALL Christian Nations, including "Eastern" Orthodox Christian Nations, Russia etc. ❤️✝️❤️💪🏼⚖️

[@misaelfraga8196]

I visited St. Peter's a month ago and stood right on the spot where Charlemagne was crown. It was surreal.

[@davidgonzalez-herrera2980]

27 AD on the 4th month of our Gregorian Calendar, on the 14th day, was the most important day of the Roman Empire.

[@Gundus1000]

But Rome was more than a city, or Italy, my home region at that time was for 500 years roman and the french a few decades longer. What they experienced was a very violent and ugly fall, which lasted decades and is very good documented. And Rome discontinued to care for anything beyond the alps, and even their own legions, trapped at the former border to the north. That came with the decision, of german usurpators, to concentrate on Italy. The Western Roman Imperium was the core and it fell. The rest is history. 476 is as good as a date, as any later one. Rome never came back to be the heart of the empire, and nor did Ravenna, or any other city on the peninsula. Italy never was more than a province ever again.

[@sjoncb]

326 ad when the Roman elites created the greatest lie. *EVER*

[@peterkoch3777]

Carolus Magnus was crowned in Rome at 800 by the pope as Roman Emperor. In fact, for most people the West Roman Empire did continue with the Holy Roman Empire.

[@descendantofgreeksandroman2505]

As a descentant of Greeks and Romans (i.e. a modern Greek) have heard from my grandmother "ΕΜΕΙΣ ΕΙΜΕΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΙ" (i.e. we are Romans). All the way until 20 centure "uneducated" greeks call thermselfs ΡΩΜΑΙΟΙ (i.e. romans) and their vulgar greek language "romeika" (i.e. language of the romans). I am glad that you have the required knowledge to understand the real history's situation.

[@bioliv1]

What a quality leap since last time I visited this channel!

[@bobyrd74]

Again, more incrediblty fascinating input. Especially the part on when any why the denunciation as "greeks".

[@lucyfaire1980]

People must understand, there is no BYZANTINE anything. WE call them that way. There was only ROMAN up until 1453. Even later than that. I am Greek and every poem I remember up until WW1 used the term ΡΩΜΙΟΣ = ROMAN. The are even audio records of soldiers in ww1 that refer to each other as ROMANS. The Greek nation in the legal literal sense had been lost from the time the Great Alexander's empire was over. It returned in the Greek-Turkish war of Independence in 1821...

[@suhasutcu6547]

Up until a century or so, in Turkish the word used for Greek was "Rum", which literally means Roman. So, not only did the Greeks call themselves Roman but their neighbours(at least one) did too. Byzantine is just a word made up by Western Europe.

[@ibrahimturan28]

​@@suhasutcu6547 german founded "byzantium" in fact it never exists.

[@falconeshield]

Moslim's called them that for a long time, even before they took over Konstantinople. When the ERE tried to retake Malta (Melita, turned into Malita for 200 oppressive years) the Moslims at the time told them to fight the Rum to gain land and name, in 1053. They must've forgotten to make everyone happy, because when Ruggieru I came to restore Malta in 1091, the people embraced the Rum back with open arms. And exiled the Moslims eventually, taking history books with them. Malta still has a blank state between the 7th and 11th century to this day.

[@ibrahimturan28]

@@suhasutcu6547 In Turkish there is different words, Yunan are Greek current Greece and Rum are anatolian greek(east Roman) speaking.

[@shannondavis3686]

You must understand that from 470’s- 620’s your explanation is correct. By 620 however, all Latin language, Tittles, and Structure had been removed and replace with the pre Latin invasion Greek Tittles, Structure, and Language. In both The Government and The Army. Taking back their Hellenic Greek State of “Byzantium”, while removing all Latin Applications in The East. They may have called theirselves Romans, but if that makes them Romans then so are The Visigoths, Spanish, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Belgae, Bretons, Aquitanians, Gascon/Basque, and Franks. All of whom adopted “Latin Roman” Culture, Language, and Structure in varying degrees into their kingdoms. Leading to “The Holy Roman Empire” ruled by Germanics, yet called “Romans” by themselves. So if “The Greeks of Byzantium” are “Romans”, the same goes for the rest. Who Actually carried on The Roman Legacy by Action. Byzantium is the ancient mane of the region West of The Bosporus, where the city of Byzantium existed, until being renamed Constantinople.

[@carlosfilho3402]

751 AD is considered the rise of the Carolingian dynasty.

[@WorthlessWinner]

KEK that the bit of italy the Greek Empire kept was magna grecia

[@timothyrday1390]

"The Eastern Roman Empire survived unharmed" 1:26 -Proceeds to show centuries of devastating losses

[@raykaelin]

Well done sir! Both interesting and erudite, with insights and opinions only an intelligent scholar can present. Great job!

[@MrDubyadee1]

Thanks!

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

Thank you very much for your kind donation, I really appreciate it

[@johnmcgrath6192]

475 was not taught in my schools. ... THE eastern Romans called themselves Romans and so did their enemies. Because they were the Romans.

[@amirmichaelroyer]

In a treatise by the Bishop Herman (of Magdeburg possibly? One of the northern marches) he describes the change as “the transfer of the crown of the emperor from Greece to Germany” which is an interesting way to put it.

[@P3truts]

The Eastern Roman Empire only appeared with the Great Schism. That's when the split became real and official. And irreversible. I do agree that the catalyst for that was what has happened in the year 751. Great point exposition.

[@ChritopherGazaway-rx6vo]

I'm very happy to have found your channel! Thank you from a satisfied new subscriber!

[@briangronberg6507]

I’m very glad you mentioned the Byzantine Papacy!

[@ljubodraggrujic4872]

The Middle Ages lasted from the fall of the Roman Empire to the fall of the Roman Empire.

[@kriskris998]

In my opinion this is all correct. I think that the Real Roman Empire ended during the reign and the end of Heraclius

[@tylerellis9097]

I would instead say Reign of Leo III as the end of the Late Roman Period

[@zanderC5953]

Thank you for this video, I agree with your conclusion. The 476 AD date is an inaccurate oversimplification of Roman history. 751 AD represents a political and cultural shift in Italy, after centuries of seismic shifts.

[@dianahaugh7521]

I would argue that the Western Empire continued on in Spain until 711 AD. The Hispano Roman senate in Toledo continued meeting all the way until the Muslim conquest. The Visigoth invaders had quickly adopted Roman culture, language and law. Ultra conservative Spain was more Roman than Rome and so firmly held onto Roman culture that they successfully imprinted it on their Latin American colonies. Coming of age in Central America,and learning about Roman: street grids, laws, social structure, tertulias, mores I thought, but we have all that here

[@alanhunter2019]

Thanks

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

Thank you very much for your kind donation, I really appreciate it

[@odysseusrex5908]

Very, very interesting presentation, Sebastian. I couldn't disagree with a word. My best to Jixuan.

[@chadwhitman1811]

He makes a good case ." The last Byzantine outpost in Italy, Bari was lost in 1071."

[@tylerellis9097]

Well not counting the 25 years Ancona in northern Italy was a Byzantine vassal from 1155 to 1180

[@davidmiddleton7958]

Just want to add a few comments to this. Firstly, I am aware of most of this. But the distinction being the administration of things shifted to Constantinople! The later home of the Emporers was Constantinople. With the sacking of Rome, it had proven to be unsafe to rule in Italy. Another point, after the withdrawl of Roman troops in Britain, many petitions for aid were sent to Constantinople. Though, Britain did eventually fall to the Saxons.

[@lyudmila1001]

Thank you, what a well thought out and presented history lesson!

[@raylast3873]

I‘m honestly kind of dubious about the idea that there was ever legally a split between Eastern and Western Empires in the first place. After the Crisis of the Second Century, it was not at all unusual for there to be more than one Emperor with different seats and different geographic responsibilities, but this was always a practical consideration, and they weren‘t ever emperors of separate legal entities, and that was imo what they were technically doing, right up until the rise of the Germanic Kings in Italy. And arguably, Emperor Constantine always intended Constantinople to replace Rome as the capital, both because it was an impractical location and because he personally didn‘t like Rome. So, the Emperor in Constantinople was always the main emperor, governing the richest and most important provinces, while his co-emperor in Rome, while legally equivalent, inevitably declined with the steady loss of Western provinces, until he became a legal fiction that the Army decided to do away with-but, always under the stipulation that they were still loyal to the Emperor in Constantinople; after all, these Germanic officers running the western Roman army had no intention of getting rid of the empire-they just wanted to be part of it‘s governing class and enjoy it‘s amenities. Which they could do splendidly by swearing loyalty to the successors of Constantine the Great in the (actual) Imperial capital. Legally, then, the empire just shifted focus to it‘s more important eastern provinces and it‘s new purpose-built capital, but the line of Emperors remained unbroken and it was legally always the same empire.

[@hongdalai2753]

In 751 AD, Ravenna, the capital of the Roman Empire in the west, fell. In the same year, the Battle of Tallas took place in Central Asia between the Tang Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate in the east! Then four years later, in 755 AD, the Anshi Rebellion broke out in the Tang Empire, killing more than 30 million people! In 762 AD, Caliph Mansur the second established his capital in Baghdad. It can be seen that the world at that time was full of constant wars and chaos!

[@scottn2046]

476 to 751 the Roman Empire was a kind of Schrödinger's Empire. It had both fallen and not fallen. If Justinian's re-conquests had held, like Aurelian's, then we wouldn't consider 476-751 just a tumultuous period in Roman History. After the hits of the Plague, the Arab conquests and the Lombards, the pretence that a unitary Roman state, centred on Rome itself, its language and culture, ended.

[@zimriel]

Good summary, Spaetantiker to Spaetantiker. I pondered the end of the "Byzantine Papacy", or maybe the 'Abbasid overthrow of the Syria-focused Umayyads (the 'Abbasids would never be nearly the same threat to Anatolia was, say, Sulayman or Hisham had been). Or Constantine V's iconoclasm. But I don't have the dates in my head offhand.

[@Supremor-tj9dv]

That was very interesting. It’s tough to find detailed info about what happened to Italy/Rome after the initial Lombard invasion.

[@ignudof]

Danke!

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

Thank you very much for your kind donation, I really appreciate it

[@ComicBookMuscle]

I didn’t know James Gunn was into correcting people about Rome and history.

[@aarengraves9962]

I don't know where you are from, but Greeks were part of the Roman Empire for 1500 years. They are the true Romans We don't say that Eastern Romans are Greeks... we say that *Greeks are fundamentally the Eastern Romans.* Roman is not a nationality or ethnicity.

[@Theodoros_Kolokotronis]

Well said buddy 👏👏

[@patrickmizelle9001]

It is odd that when Romulus Augustulus was dumped and a German took over, it was considered the end of the western empire rather than just a change of dynasty, when nobody thought that when, say, an Arab like Eliogabalus came to the throne. Also the odd insistence on "Byzantine" as if things like fashions, official languages, forms of government, can't change over time while still being manifestly continuous. Italy was worn out, and everybody who was anybody by that time had moved east, to where the money was...as well as the government.