A fast, oversimplified speed run through 369 years of Imperial Roman history. Every single emperor worth noting gets a brief reign summary and a ranking out of ten. Thanks for watching! Music: Bensound www.bensound.com/royalty-free...
2:21 "They also smashed his daughter's 8 month year old skull" The sheer horrificness of that baby's fate almost made me overlook that atrocity of a sentence you made there xD
So disappointed to see this only got a few thousand views. You did an excellent job here. Entertaining while remaining accurate, and including what I consider the most important information on the subject. Good stuff.
@@generichistory By the way, that Pertinax quote is amazing, but I can't find it anywhere. I really wanna show it to my friend. Can you tell me where you got it from by chance?
Why does everyone make Domitian look bad only reason he is bad is because the senate wrote the history otherwise he was a great administrator and balanced the economy also about his senate hating he had good reasons and Claudius pruged. More senators than Domitian also the Praetorian guard was loyal to him he was killed by the senate
10:20 Pertinax: Party’s over, mother suckers! The stoics are back in town. Wait, what do you mean that you like the guy that came before me?! Are you crazy?
Great video. This deserves at least one or two more zeroes at the end of the view count :/ Only thing else I'll say is I think there were good points to Domitian you left out. He was a prone-to-murder prude of course but he was also very economically sound being the only Roman emperor who properly tackled inflation.
Yeah I've been thinking about it. After I did this one I tried to make another for the later Roman emperors but it just became a mess when the empire divided between east and west. Any ideas for something similar that would be good?
@@generichistory Well, unless you're only interested in antiquity, early modern period would be just as exciting. My country managed to go from great to non-existent in two centuries via elective monarchy because there were so many traitors and morons around ^
@@kilagorila I honestly love all history and plan to videos covering a wide range of times and places. It just so happens that my formal education has been mostly ancient history so it takes up the majority of what I do right now. judging from the description, is you country Poland per chance?
While it pains me to regurgitate the same song and dance as the majority of this comment section, I am blown away that this video is so obscure. It's brilliantly done. Needless to say, you have a new subscriber. Here's hoping you get more views.
The RU-vid algorithm fucked you really up on this one, what a great entertaining video! (this was on my start page tho, so maybe shit's about to change)
While I disagree on a lot of your stances and perspectives on some of these guys and especially the end of Antiquity this video was real good man, it was funny.
Alexander severus persian campaign was simply unlucky, he was hit by illness, without that he could had crushed sassanid in the cradle.. However, he was planning a second campaign to finish the job, but alemanni attack from the west
@@generichistory I do believe you meant "Lusitania" instead of "Luisitania" and yes, the Roman province of Lusitania wasn't an important one, but the preroman tribe (or league) called as the Lusitanians, that's other story. They're known for their guerrilla warfare (I already saw the analogy "Roman's Vietnam") and some raids over Roman positions over Iberia (peninsula) after the 2nd Punic war. Well, if there was really a Luisitania, I'll really want to see that!
while Commodus is terribad, I have Caracalla worse. Commodus was just Caligula on hyperdrive, but at least he was so crazy he did inane stupid shit like change the name of rome and give his advisors rounds of mass corruption. At least he didn't gouge the economy and debase the currency to give more gibs to the legionaries, ensuring their loyalty would be to the highest bidder and sowing the seeds for the crisis. His skits in Parthia also allowed the Sassanids to quickly rise to power and that's obviously a problem. He also killed tens of thousands of people in his purges of Geta and those associated with him and when he razed Alexandria just because they made a joke about him in a play. For me the worst emperors would be Commodus, Caracalla, Honorius/Valentinian III (really hesitant to say whose worse) and while I never got deep into Eastern Roman history, Andronikos II sounds like he could make Phokas have a run for his money.
I guess Commodus comes off worse because the previous five emperors were so good. Also for the record, I'd say Honorius was worse than Valentinian the third. Valentinian was a poor leader but Honorius is almost unbelievably awful.
You failed miserably with Emperor Constantine - THE GREAT (get it right!) who won every battle he ever fought as a GREAT General and was declared emperor by his OWN Armies in 306 and ruled for nearly 31 years, second longest reign behind Augustus. *smdh*
I still love how people are switching from using the literally-millenia-old AD and BC to these hilarious dungeons and dragons terms "CE" and "BCE". really makes you *feel* like you're living in Narnia or some shit lol. They're even the same years (revolving entirely around Jesus Christs' birth) so the change is pointless. Can't wait for "the English Language" to be renamed "common tongue". it's just around the corner, surely, at this rate.
It's because back in the 90s people were like "Jesus didn't exist even as a man despite both secular evidence and all the abrahamic religions talking about him" so to be 'inclusive' and 'secular' they pretended 0CE didn't refer to Jesus
ya so the change of AD and BC to CE and BCE is bc ppl realized that not everyone in the world is christian, so referring to years past 0 as Common Era rather than Year of Our Lord was more appropriate. the years are the same too so adoption is easier
@@gjkilla16 Do you really believe people only realised other religions existed in the 90s? Dumbass. People who don't want to use western calendars for religious or political reasons will continue to use their own calendars. The change from AD to CE was to placate polemicists in academia
The Biblical gospels do not cut it as history in these terms. Only St. Paul is thought to qualify in chronological terms. Yet, Paul had almost nothing to say about Jesus as a man and seems to have conceptualized him as a rarefied celestial being. For these reasons, most of the weight falls on Roman scholars and historians. Of these, Josephus, and Tacitus are most often cited as providing good documentary evidence for a historical Jesus. Carrier dismisses the two relevant Josephus passages as interpolations, or pieces added in to the manuscript by Christian scribes. One passage refers to the execution of Jesus by Pilate (called the Testimonium Flavianum). Carrier (p. 332) comments, “This passage is self-evidently a fawning and gullible Christian fabrication, in fact demonstrably derived from the Emmaus narrative in the Gospel of Luke, inserted into the text at a point where it does not make any narrative sense ...” Carrier (pp. 337-8) argues that the second Josephus passage referring to James the brother of Jesus actually referred to James the brother of Jesus ben Damneus who was falsely executed by the high priest Ananus who was removed from office as a punishment and replaced by the same Jesus ben Damneus, He concludes that the phrase “(who was called Christ)” is probably a copyist error. The Tacitus reference to “Chrestians” evidently refers to a Jewish rebel (Chrestus) who was executed but had nothing to do with Christianity. Carrier (pp. 343-4) concludes that a line referring to Pontius Pilate as the official who executed Christ, “is probably an interpolation, and that Tacitus in fact originally described not the Christians being scapegoated for the fire, [in Rome] but followers of the Jewish instigator Chrestus first suppressed under Claudius...” If Tacitus attributed the fire in Rome to Christians, he was the only Roman historian to do so.
Carrier does make some good points but there's no getting around the fact that it is a fringe theory amongst historians. Suetonius also refers to Christians being subject to the persecutions of Nero and although you are correct that later christians did have a habit of rewriting old history to suit their own narrative, it's rarely subtle. Most scholars agree that early christians were victims of a persecution under Nero and that it's them that Tacitus refers to in his account. He even gives his opinion on them and it is not a positive one. you're well within your rights to disagree but to say that these fringe theories are "evident" as opposed to just a speculation isn't right at all.
