Late Roman Bureaucrats: Why they were crucial for Imperial unity, and Imperial disintegration 

Chatti? More like Catti

No that was a very civilised invasion by Felis Catus not the barbarian Felis Silvestris!

Yeah the late period doesn’t get much love on YT. I’m hoping to make that my niche, everyone seems to do the early empire or republic Cracks were apparent, but the majority probably were understood by the time of Majorian to just be features of the Roman system, not bugs, because they had been going on for nearly a century by that point.

@@TheFallofRome So if for a hypothethical Majorians campaign were a success and he somehow manages to get the political clout to change policies, there wouldn't still be a Diocletian Like series of reforms to restructure the empire to solve those problems?

@@andreascovano7742 There was no going back by the time Majorian took power. If he won he would’ve still had to integrate the Germanic survivors into the Roman System that he would *have* to reform to continue in the West. There would’ve been a much more Roman Europe (or West) that could’ve been supported by later Eastern Emperors to the point where the West could return the favor (around 632ad or earlier) I don’t know if he would try to destroy the Germans completely or reduce them to/lower-than federati (I don’t know how to spell that one) to continue serving the Empire.

@@andreascovano7742 No. The decline is organic. The pioneer virtues are corrupted by the centralisation of money. Capital destroyed Rome and the virtues that made it great. It was money that finished off the Republic ect. What Rome didn't have was a figure like Hitler who could revive a consciousness of Roman greatness and its virtues. Money talks. Toynbee and Spengler both agreed that Rome was destroyed by Capitalism. After a millennium it re-emerges from the dark ages Medieval period in the Italian city states ect. That it is now also in terminal decay in the West but far more accelerated is also terminal irreversible. See also the O'Henry Brothers Iron Law Of Decay In History. US 1880s. It compares with Marx but from a right wing position but the conclusion is the same. Systemic collapse. Not for nothing as an example of his degenerated class did Boris Johnson describe the Romans as bastards. He fell victim to the big money 22 himself.

Highly interesting

Duh

I have a couple videos on Carthage planned. Greece is a little outside my area, but I’ll take a stab at ir

@@TheFallofRome Carthage as in the civilization/culture or the history of the city? Cause I’ll watch both but I would like to know why it was abandoned for Tunis (with the E. Romans being the last to use it’s the local capital). Tunis is a good spot inland but Carthage is like West Alexandria v. Cairo.🤔 Perhaps the Arabs wanted inland provincial capitals to prevent sea attacks?

For that I would recommend Jones’ “The Later Roman Empire”, there are some editors for twenty dollars or so. I’d also suggest reading all of Peter Brown’s work, and Paul Veyne’s “History of Private Life”. That one I’d suggest you try to find in pdf. Print versions I’ve seen are somewhat expensive

@@TheFallofRome thanks

@@hello-ox5rf you’re welcome!!!

Hm. My understanding is that the people the Romans describe as Mauri were indeed Moors...at least, that was my understanding based on my reading of Halsall and Kulikowski. Where do you recommend I look further? I would agree that that is definitely a point where problems begin to arise, and I worry about it in the modern day at home too. But idk what to do I’m poor and one guy lmao. No but seriously it’s a problem

@@TheFallofRome My main issue with it is the word as it is used now (and I think at least 1200 years) specifically refers to Islamic Arabs/Berbers/Old Iberians. So calling the Mauri Moors creates some inherent confusion. Also the word itself as used in the Mozarabic Chronicle (or at least the translations I've read) signifies the Mauri. So including say the Gaetuli (Saharan Berbers) or Numidians as I got the impression you did may not be the best choice if you are describing people from the Atlantic coast to Libya.

@@specialnewb9821 I see. I just checked Halsall’s “Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West” and it looks like he’s using specifically to refer to those groups living in what is today Morocco and Algeria. Of course the section before that is going on about how the Roman view was “F you, you don’t get proper names bcz BARBARIAN”... That said, if the Moors experience ethnogenesis during and after the Islamic conquests, I’m surprised Halsall made that slip up. His work is usually pretty solid with that stuff. What would you recommend instead? Just “Mauri”? But, then again this was an off the cuff video and I probably should have explained the intricacies better. Granted I’m more familiar with the European groups than the North African

@@TheFallofRome Mozarabic Chronicle refers to ethnic groups more than religious groups. AFAIK its the earliest surviving Latin text that uses "Europenses" (referring to the franks at Tours/Poitiers), specifically uses Maurorum for Berbers living in Morocco and western Algeria and Ishmaelite for the Arabs. It's tough. Moors was absolutely in use by the middle ages specifically to refer to Muslims of North Africa regardless of ethnic origin, so using it for the western/central North African Berbers is definitely a different usage than it has been for a long time. I think Mauri might be best, but as I said a tough choice. Like to use Moor in the broad sense, I think the connection has to be regarding Islam.

@@TheFallofRome Is that why you were a randroid at one time? The Moochers?