Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS: clcr.me/teHpDC ✅ ANDROID: clcr.me/IaEOtG ✅PC: clcr.me/ScxaGf and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days
@@jacopofolin6400 - Not even vaguely a Turk, I just happen to know history and the man who made up purgatory so people forced their kids into a religion as telling them the standard myths wasnt working very well. Invented sky daddies and myths to show how devoted people are to that sky daddy are part of history but they are non-factual stories. If the world believed Harry Potter was god, it would not make him real let alone a divinity. Long believed lies are still lies.
"It would have be sensible to recruit locally" actually it makes a lot of sense to send troops from one side if the empire to another area so that they will have less inclination to sympathise with local rebels.
I suspect they meant more along the lines of: it would have been sensible to send an already nearby legion rather than a far off unit that might take months to get to the area. Generally speaking the Roman Empire was very quick to attack it's rebels, even if it meant only involving local forces rather than experienced legionaries or if that required them to attack a foe who had superior numbers. that way they could prevent the rebels from acquiring more support. Furthermore, a "locally" recruited unit is not necessarily sympathetic to a revolt. Remember, those new recruits would most likely not have been recruited upon a random basis, there would be a huge number of of local rivalries and grievances and it is very likely that it would be the most desperate (for plunder) or the most aggrieved men who would volunteer for such a campaign. cruel as the "Romans" could be, they were not necessarily more persistent than their local "allies" in the destruction of their enemy. Lastly, there is the question of the use of the word locally. in this case it seems to have been about a campaign in south/central France, sending men from say Spain (separated by the Pyrenees), North-Italy (separated by the Alps), Britain or the German border would not necessarily involve men who were more likely to sympathize with the locals than say men of Greece, Africa, Sicily, Syria or Egypt
We also have strong evidence for Sarmatae units posted at the Hadrian and Antonine walls. This was indeed an old tactic of empires, seen with the very first empire in Sumeria, and yes, the Romans did do it as well: take people of region A to pacify and/or colonize in region B, and people of B to do the same in A.
It's worth considering too that he bagaudae uprisings were different breed than something such as the Batavi Rebellion or Spartacus' Revolt: the bagaudae thing was more similar to the Socii Revolt from Republican times. In other words, it would be like trying to raise a socii legion to suppress the revolt of the same tribe...the would-be socii troops are the ones forming the armed part of the revolt. Bagaudae uprisings were essentially seperatist conflicts that involved entire civil, urban and pagani authority, as well as local cohorts and limes, breaking with the central Roman imperium. Many bagaudae revolts became endemic and some regions were outside imperial control for decades, eg. Aquitaine and Provencal regions around the regime of Majorian. It needs be mentioned too that this is coming at the end of the Third Century Crisis, hardly the time when Roman central rulership was at its most seamless. As for units posted along the Rhine or in Britain, many of them were needed precisely in those areas, as these were threat areas to begin with. Incidents such as the Great Conspiracy show how volatile and tenuous the situation could potentially get in northern Europe, going into the 4th century. It is far from outlandish then for cohorts raised in Egypt to be used to assert rulership in bagaudae regions of Gaul. Egypt was a rich area with good manpower reserves, the situation on its immediate borders was more secure than Britain, North Gaul and Rhine areas of the time, and ocean travel was efficient compared to mustering supply depots for large land maneuvers from northern Europe down south: Egypt itself was a bread basket that would afford ample supply and monies for tasking a large force, and then that force can move mostly over water until it got to north Italia, where supply depots would in turn be effectuated relatively cheaply and much more securely than in Gaul. There is other stuff too that helps corroborate the "Theban Legion" story, which Kings and Generals didn't touch on much if at all. One is that there is Legio Thebiae listed in the Notitia Dignitatum. Another is that there is some papyrus records and coin minting from the relevant period that indicates a quite large mobilization/muster for a legio around the relevant areas of Egypt, by Diocletian's imperium, departing from Alexandria. Still another thing to consider is the heavy historical attestation for both the Valerian and Diocletian Persecutions of Christians, in particular the Diocletian-mandated culling of the legions for Christians: the video implies strongly that few Christians were even in the legions, and makes no mention of the historical orders by Diocletian to scrutinize Christians in the legions specifically, on concerns of disloyalty. There is also the matter of archaeology and study of artifacts pertaining to the martyrs which were preserved as relics in the Roman colony of Augaunum in Switzerland, that would eventually become be the site of St. Maurice abbey. Finally, the video also implied that the only account of the event is one in which the entire force was executed, or c. 6K men, and the problems with both the numbers and anachronism relating to St. Sigismund. The thing is, it was not uncommon for ecclesiastical histories to contain numerological symbolism (ie 666 out of 6,660 soldiers, corresponding to the number from Revelation), poetic allusions, etc., as with all Antique histories, Christian authored or otherwise. In other words, just because Eucherius very probably made use of such literary devices does not in itself disprove the idea that a large Roman force was decimated or targeted by way of Diocletian's orders. Likewise, because the bishop was writing long after the events, and some anachronistic elements may be present, that does not in itself mean the core event is itself an anachronism or ficticious. If that be the case, then most all Classical and Antique sources need to be scrapped for making other Kings and Generals videos, such as Suetonius, Pliny, and Vegetius. What is interesting is that the bishop was not writing of something hitherto unknown: he was a addressing the Theban Legion story in a letter to another bishop because it was a story *already established*, with a cultus already regionally developed in Helvetia and Burgundy. On the same note, there are other histories which talk about the Theban event from Antique and/or Early Medieval time which present other interpretation, for example, a recurring one is that there were survivors of the persecution of the unit, and that it was not an entire force of thousands that perished, but rather a cohort, a vexillum, or several.
@ Patrick: *"Actually it makes a lot of sense to send troops from one side if the empire to another area so that they will have less inclination to sympathise with local rebels."* An example in support of what your describing can also be found from near contemporary time: when Theodosius was campaigning in the Balkans in the 380s AD, he got concerned about the loyalties of much of his army, so he ordered large contingents of them to ship off to Egypt, whilst simultaneously summoning for units stationed in Egypt to come join him in the Balkans, to make up the resultant manpower shortage. So that's an example right there of 1) a Roman ruler requesting troops from abroad in the midst of a campaign, 2) with such a campaign being against rebels/usurpers, and 3) the troops even coming from Egypt. The parallels with the strategic movement of military force in the St. Maurice story are striking
I took me far to long to realize why you were talking about Egypt when you said Theban because I was listening while working. Forgot that Thebes is in Greece and Egypt.
@@joe_5768 Thebes was rebuilt within a few decades via donations. It never regained political prominence but it did rise to become a fairly wealthy center of local trade.
@@guyukassman7705 K & G is an exceptional source of knowledge on modern and ancient history, and they deliver this at a consistent level of quality and effort which few match. Even if it's true that Mfundo is bootlicking (he isn't), it's not so bad!
See my comments above pertaining to Eucherius' letter. K&G actually seriously dropped the ball in this video, or at least Emily Addison, their researcher and script writer for this episode, did. Regardless, the decision by K&G to not have any bibliography in the description, or in-video citation, is pretty egregious. There is no link provided for Addison or her work either.
@@LibertysetsquareJack There have never been in-video citations or links to the researchers work outside of the channel. Would you like a bibliography?
"History is often hard sift through, to find the truth can take many lifetimes. But the story of Mauricio, the commenter of Kings & Generals videos is a short and brutal one" there's the opening for video, is that enough for you?
The writing, narrating and animations of these videos is beyond amazing, to all involved in the Kings and General channel your community loves and appreciates ALL the hard work you put into your videos, it clearly shows and it’s what makes your content stand out and above the rest. Keep up the amazing work and as always I can’t wait for the next amazing video!
Your videos make me feel the Roman times is something that happened last year and not 1500 years ago, such is the immersion and flawlessness these videos bring out.
The Order of Saint Maurice is an honor that the US Army gives for exceptional service to the Infantry. It is about brotherhood and sacrifice for your fellow soldier. To receive it, you must meet all of the requirements and be recommended by someone already in the order. I was honored to receive it last year, and I love the history of what it represents and where it comes from.
That award is not given by the US Army itself. It's awarded by the "National Infantry Association", which is a private, non-profit, fraternal organization. There is a difference. But in any case, congratulations, well done.
@@CrackedCandy Not according to their website. Apparently they own a museum near an army post, and they sell these awards to members to help finance the thing.
Great video! I love how despite the name "Kings and Generals" this channel delves into the material basis for history instead of over simplistically focusing on the actions and lives of individual "great men."
It’s honestly amazing what we have today. We have at our fingertips so much history and knowledge that is so easily accessible. This page is a great example of that. Incredible work.
They make good content so I give them a pass for raid but there are other channels that give quality content get sponsors and actively joke about rejecting raid sponsorship so if they wanted to they could reject raid still be profitable and make quality content
@@leoskiii5860 I mean whatever, it doesn't even bother me anymore. I just skip the Raid Shadow Legends part. I'm glad that Kings and Generals is getting money in a way that hardly even bothers me.
This was an amazing video. Really shed some light on the beauty of this legend. As a Christian, I really liked your background on the history of the faith as well.
I'm surprised that this video was a half an hour long like most of them lately. But I'm glad too. Not all of them need to be. My compliments to all those who made this video a reality.
Very interesting presentation with a welcome and appropriate broadening of the subject and the many implications of the story of Saint Maurice of Acaune. As a matter of fact, the Roman Legions that were active in Gaule and in Germany consisted of many foreign soldiers, with quite a lot of non-European elements. The best proof of this usage are the numerous grave stones found in archeological remains of ancient villae of dwellings on the west side of the Rhine. These cenotaphs often bear inscriptions of latinized Palestinian, Syrian and Egyptian names. After serving a minimum of10 years in the Roman army, legionaries were usually rewarded and compensated with a plot of land given to each of them. Many, though stemming from the Middle East, chose to stay in Europe. And interestingly, even today in the countryside around Trier (Augusta Treverorum) for example, it is not unusual to come across natives exhibiting the traits of their distant non Germanic ancestors...
This was a very strange video. The de-railing to cover animals in gladiator games seemed to be just fluff to cover the lack of actual information on the Theban legion. And why would legionaries capture animals? Very strange and sub par overall.
@@Reignor99 Fat kid moment Fitness was and is an integral part of being a soldier. We can't all sit around and be obese like you, some of us have to actually defend you. Be thankful big boy
I hope at some point, Kings and Generals will cover the Saxon wars against Charlemagne. It seems to be an underrated conflict, and I believe it played a significant role in bringing about the Viking age.
Kings and Generals are you gonna do more coverage of Ancient Egypt like Thutmose III military campaigns in Nubia and even his well known Battle of Megiddo in 1457 BC???
What a great video! KnG's team work is simply astonishing. If you'll accept a suggestion about roman times, a video about the Cantabrian wars of Octavian could be really enjoyable. Specially if we take account the story of the cantabrian chieftain Corocotta who, having an enourmous bounty on his head by the romans, smuggeled himself into the tent of Octavian and said to him "Well, here's my head. Now, where's my coin?"
@@KingsandGenerals you gain our sympathy with your EXellent work in details and most of time above stereotypes,yes if you Deside to do it about revolution don't forget to mention all the Conflicts before,You will find it easy ,you don't need Guidnes the Greek Mercenaries,of Venice,the Greek communities of he Mountain still believe that your GRATEST video will be the one about the march 10 .000 of XZenofon ,with all details ,thanks and continue the good job
I would like to add that in addition, public sacrifice and rite were not only for the state. We have the idea of a general roman religion when each city, community, legion or group have their own local deity with variation of worship in each place. So, by not participating, early christian were not only "betraying" the empire, but they were also rejecting the common idea of community at that time which mainly centralize around the idea of the city, and that is mainly because christian did not recognize themselve as part of a city but as part of a community.
As a Christian, Saint Maurice is real. Still one of the great examples of doing your duty for Christ of whom did his duty as Son of God who takes away the sins of the world with his death and resurrection.
It was during the time of the era of Diocletian that Christian persecution reached her apex. Also it is not uncommon for legions to be raised from far flung territories only to serve for a period of time in another part of the empire. It is well known that the imperial Roman legions had such tendencies over a 25 year period of being raised to being decommissioned that a centurion can expect to go to Hispanic, Gaul, Pannonia, North Africa and Syria in multiple tours of expedition. Given the tumult of the 3rd century AD after the era of barracks emperors, Emperors and Caesars generally want a bolstered presence of troops. It was during this era, that total imperial troop strength grew steadily. Battles were at least in the tens of thousands. The campaigns of Constantine against Maxentius had both forces having over hundred thousand men. When Constantine had marched on Rome, Maxentius had already raised one hundred thousand legionaries from North Africa to support the Defence of Rome. So it is not unlikely at all that a Theban legion is called up to support where the leaders need them most. Besides by this time the logistics and transport routes were much more mature than they ever was with people and soldiers trading and moving across the Mediterranean all the time. Rome was a bustling empire even despite the problems she encountered. Her great decline only occurred during and after Attila the Hun, and that is about 100 Plus years from the era we are talking about.
@@ee12321 creation = creator. That’s your proof and to deny it is displaying your extreme blindness and hard heart to see that which you see and yet not believe
Plus even the authenticity is questionable, Christianity was proliferated by Diocletian’s time that even his policies also crack down on army and upper classes. Also part of me wonder if his Christian legion were penal units, like soldiers rooted from their original units rounded up to renounce at pain of death.
Than you would know that St.Maurice was a black man (Israelite)who the world ignorantly calls Christians today.😂😂😂How does it feel to find out that your history is fake and have been white washed to hide that we are the original Christians and Jews.
Great video as always. Question for the channel or anybody else within the K&G stratosphere: How late into the empire was decimation practiced? I imagine both during and after the crisis of the 3rd century, the concept of severely depleting a legion’s manpower was unspeakable, as replacing those troops would have been nearly impossible. Or even the Antonine Plague years earlier when manpower was also an issue.
Saint Maurice, most blessed and honorable patron saint, you who fought so valiantly on the battlefield of faith, steadfastly opposed the tyranny of earthly rulers, boldly confessed faith in the one true God, and preferred to die by the sword rather than to betray your Lord, Jesus Christ, pray for us.
Raising a Legion predominantly or exclusively made from Christians and moving a legion across the empire are not imporpable things: - maybe there was a local deal that some christians would enlist in a Legion, so that others could avoid the need to do the sacrifices. "If you do not want to sacrifice animals, pay your debt/homage to the empire in your own blood and sweat on the battlefield instead!". - moving troops far away from their point of raising could be a viable technique if their loyalty was in quesiton. If you got a Italian deserter in the Italian countryside - possibly hiding with familiy - there is a decent chance for them to fly under the radar and never be caught. But for someone from another part of the empire, desertion would be much harder to pull off that far from home. The terrain was inherently hostile for every possible deserter. And even Tzun Tsu mentions the value of "no escape" scenarios to maintain morale and cohesion of troops. In summary: It is not impossible that a legion was primarily raised from Christians. It is not impossible that such a Legion was moved across the empire, to make sure they did not desert. It is not impossible that they were ordered kill fellow christians and gaul and refused (the romans having not yet fully understood how improtant the shared religion was). It is not impossible that they were decimated for this refusal. It seems extremly doubtfull there was a 2nd decimation. It sounds like hyperbole that the full legion was killed. At tops I expect them being disbanded (dishonorable discharge) or the soldiers distributed across the other legions (so the contubernum level peer pressure would avoid further insurrection). It is even possible that the existence of the legion was "stripped from thre records" as part of that punishment, possibly one of hte worst punishment for a legion.
At that time legion were often not moved as a single block away from their recruitment area, vexilations were often sent. Such system avoided military coup as the army wasn’t homogenous. Imagining that a specific vexilation to be totally slaughtered is not totally impossible.
Look into North African Legionaries on Hadrian's Wall if you want a better example than Hannibal. The evidence is pretty compelling. A Legion (or detached cohorts) would and could be deployed anywhere in the Empire as needed. Though, in later years they often became very immobile.
Love your videos! How do you do the animations? I would love to start creating content regarding history in my home country, and I’m good at writing and narration, but I suck at graphic design and drawing lol. Any advice would mean a lot 😊 again, great content
Really enjoy this channel. As a lover of history it is unfortunate to see one sided research been done. Please have the good grace to do unbiased research in the future and look at reaccessing your research regarding this video
He had to have been a praetorian guard. Many praetorian guards were elite military men whom often carried a spear along with their gladius sword. The gladius sword is overall the best sword in ancient times.
Guys quoting Voltaire is not an argument. He chased and attacked anything christian with or without facts. I am french and he is not a reliable source for any topic.
Great video about history of theology and history of Rome! Can you make series on the battles and history of Greek revolution? (I know you have too many unfinished series to finish).
One thing I wonder is if the Theban "Legion" is a misnomer. Legions were large tactical/operational formations of 5,000+ troops. However they were far from the only tactical units used by the empire. The Romans used huge numbers of auxiliary troops- auxilia cohorts. These were smaller formations of around 500 troops and they were locally raised, so a cohort raised from Theban Christians wouldn't be too much of a stretch. I could see the Theban "Legion" as another auxilia cohort of a similar number at the time of its founding. I can imagine after several months of operations and campaigning that it could be a lot smaller- perhaps just a couple of hundred survivors remain by the time of its mass execution. Then the story could balloon the numbers up to a full legion (to get the most shock effect).
In history, it's always important to give opinions from the other side. With a background in historical and theological study, Voltaire does have the credibility to speak on the matter. Obviously, no source on it's own should be taken as fact purely on it's own, but like I say, it is important to include the opinions of those, even those who might be biased against the topic, just as it is to consider the sources with a bias in favour of the topic.
@@brendanquinn6894 a polemicist can still have many an interesting thing to say that can be worth considering, in my opinion. If you disagree with voltaire, that's fine! He's not being presented as being definitively correct, his view is just being represented, and people can agree or disagree with it as they please. His opinion is noteworthy though, whether its agreed with or not, as being a comparatively early critic of the story.
The bottom line is that we aren't living c. 1700 AD: there is plenty of modern scholarship that could be used when discussing the Theban Legion legend, such as D.F. O'Reilly or David Woods. Even if they wanted use Voltaire, they needed to cite something specific from him: just saying something like "Voltaire thought the legend was based on a fiction," with nothing to corroborate, does a disservice to Voltaire and the audience to boot. It's just name dropping, as if the name of Voltaire = argument. It's silly. Dubourdieu was even more ludicrous to cite. At least in his case, K&G actually cited a specific work and thesis (ie. the disputed authorship of the Eucherius letter); but the problem is that Dubourdieu's thesis is patently untenable now. As I said, this is 2021, not 1700: the idea that the "latest" thesis is 325 years old is just ridiculous and frankly, very discrediting to the entire K&G channel's credibility. No one in modern scholarship is running with Dubourdieu's idea that Eucherius didn't write the letter, because it's just prime facie unsupportable: copies of the letter are in the archaeological record, and neither of the two oldest copies that are catalogued - BHL 5737 and BHL 5740 - make any mention of St. Sigismund, which destroys Dubourdieu's whole idea. If disproving the Theban Legion legend as based on some historical event was as easy as Dubourdieu and K&G thought, then that is what scholars would do, and it would be an open-and-shut case. But that's not the case. The reality is that *even scholars who think that the story of the Theban Legion martyrs is entirely fiction*, such as David Woods, cannot use the Dubourdieu thesis to prove such, because they recognize that neither document 5737 nor 5740 mentions Sigismund. That's why there is still scholarly debate around the Theban Legion legend, because the oldest documents we have attesting to the event can't be disproven as later forgeries, nor can the author (Eucherius) be dismissed as a composite, pseudo or otherwise non-veritable historical source. Again, if it was easy as 1) demonstrating that there was no bishop of Lyon Eucherius who has a corpus of documents verified as being in his hand, and 2) that the relevant letter to another bishop was not authored by Eucherius, then discussion of the Theban Legion would be more of an open-and-shut affair. But neither is the case. However, Voltaire by insinuation, and definitely Dubourdieu, both maintained the former...*that's* why it's ridiculous in 2021 to be citing either of them in matters of the legend's source and/or source author.
Great video as always. But. I think a bit too much was infered in a "one way street" modernist mindset, sort of manner in the construction of it. Firstly. It is assumed at the outset of the presentation that the account of St. Maurice and the Theban Legion is "universally" regarded as being historically fictitious. Such is not the case at all. There are still more than a few modern learned individuals who insist that it is an at least semi-accurate account of an event that actually did occur. Which causes the account of St. Maurice and the Theban Legion to still be debated in certain academic circles to this day. And when one objectively takes away its Late Roman and early Dark Age religious embellishments? And understands the notorious mistake modern observers often make depending upon ancient authors who were themselves...shall we say..... often "overly liberal" in describing the numerical human content of ancient armies? A better picture of who and what the "Theban Legion" really was can emerge. Secondly. It is rather foolish for modern scholars to assume that an ancient Roman emperor OR general might NOT opt to decimate or annihilate an entire legion. IF.... He thought THAT legion might be completely untrustworthy, unreliable, and exceedingly dangerous to his leadership. Certainly to ancient Roman generals. Legions were viewed primarily as tools to be trained, groomed, fostered, fed, equiped, and USED to crush opponents in battle. And in that light? An unreliable tool could be of even greater danger than an enemy opponent. Also assuming that ANY emperor or general who HAD decimated or annihilated an unreliable and perhaps mutinous legion for misconduct, would automatically be assumed by his contemporaries to be insane or evil? Is a rather naieve statement to make, seemingly devoid of understanding that ANCIENT humans did NOT think and act as MODERN humans do 99.9% of the time. In ancient times. Human life was relatively very short and assumed to be very cheap at the time by the upper classes of ancient socities. And most great leaders ruled by brute strength and at least some ability to instill a degree of fear amongst both their subjects....and enemies. And the ancient Romans were past masters at manipulating both to their advantage. To put it more succinctly. In ancient Rome. Especially after the civil wars that had brought about the fall of the ancient Roman Republic and the furthur instability and furthur civil wars, societal decay, and general instability of the 3rd century crisis? ANY great Roman leader or general HAD to at least partially embody the mantle of being a literal blood soaked dictator in order to survive for very long. So it is not only possible that the Theban Legion might have REALLY been decimated. Its very likely that it was. We have to bear in mind what we DO know about the time period we are talking about here. Christianity was still NOT a widely accepted religion. And most Roman legions members were likely still pagan or polythestic in their religious beliefs. And even if they werent? They would STILL view their general or emporer as being their most important benefactor/cult figure. And thus would have very likely unilaterally condemed any other associated legion as being cowardly or mutinous for haveing defied their liege in any way. So if an emporer or general had ordered THAT particular legion to be decimated or annihilated by its brethern. That order would have likely been carried out to the letter and NOT have been viewed as an extreme act by ANYONE at the time. And thirdly. At the end of the presentation. It seems to be conveyed that ancient Romans did not have ANY racisms or inherent bigotries when compared to modern societies. This is patently false. Rome and indeed EVERY other ancient society, survived and advanced upon the backs of the other cultures, civilisations, and nations that they conquered. The various peoples of these conquered nations were often viewed more as cattle than human beings. Bearing that in mind. Its very, very, likely that these different races of conquered humanity would have been somewhat categorized much like cattle are. With one humans "worth" being viewd by their physical, mental, AND assumed racial attributes. And granted Rome may have evolved over the course of centuries somewhat in how it viewd its slaves and other federated or allied peoples? Especially after the Servile Wars? We should make no mistake. Rome was still primarily what it was. A predatory nation state. At least until late antiquity and its fragmentation. So. The modern, "wokeish", revisionary premise that inherently human racisims and bigotries did not exist in ancient Rome? Is exceedingly naieve and simply doesnt fully wash with how and what human nature REALLY is. Rome, despite haveing its very cosmopolitan flair and many technological, societal, military, and legal evolutions. WAS still a nation of human beings. And whether we modern folk like to admit it or not. Human beings are often, sadly, universally racist or bigoted in some manner or other at some point. Whenever they view OTHER human beings. In fact. From a religious point of view. It could be logically argued that racism and bigotry are amongst the deadliest of human sins. And also sadly. Amongst the hardest and most long lived of sins to ever erase.
