As with many latin name, the english word came from the latin name. So no. Hostilian was as regular as Albert. Now if albert became so evil that a future civilization called their evil people "albertian" I guess another joe such as you could make a joke. Not a good joke to us, but they would have a good laugh.
@@AnimatedStoriesWorldwide it is pretty impressive to be so ‘hostile’ that all aggressive opponents are named after you a few generations later. I love language. A Joe like me is impressed.
One thing not mentioned here is how two of gallienus' sons were killed when their generals were proclaimed emperors..not just for postumus revolt but for aureolus' as well. Gallienus had no time for drink or games and spent his whole reign running back and forth across the empire and the thanks he got was the murder of his sons on two separate occasions and then his own death..then others took the credit for the work he started..
Gallienus seems like he was more than capable of rising to the occasion. From what I knew of his Reign before I ever heard this podcast. He seemed to be competent, cool headed & focused on trying to preserve stability.
After much reflecting, Gallienus’ reign is my biggest “I wish we had more sources” period of Roman history. He seems like a great and competent emperor who ruled during Rome’s nadir (without including the few years before the West fell), and we have virtually zero details. What an unfortunate timeline we live in where Valerian killed Cyprian just when I wanted him most!
Always love reading/hearing about the third century. From a captured Emperor in the east to the Rhine being stripped of legionairies in the face of invading Franks to Greeks suddenly scrambling to secure their cities... The sheer ammount of 'Oh, ok then...' felt across the board is exceptional. And through all that a Palmyran crazy boy right smack in the middle of the greatest threat just tears around like it's nothing and takes care of busniness no problems... It's all good stuff.
It feels like Emperors at this point were like the Swamp Castles in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. A man decides to co-rule, they both get murdered by their troops, Then another guy takes over, and is murdered by his troops, then the next guy burns down, falls down, sinks into the swamp and then is murdered by foreign troops, and the fourth one....succumbs to the plague....
Where do you think Monty Python got their ideas? Those guys usually went to public schools (private schools here) and had to learn this history. It's what made them British..
This is my second run through the series and although I may have raised it before, the Sassanid king's name is Shapoor not ShaRpoor. Shapoor is a compound name, from Shah=king and Poor=son(of).
@@mrlakkie1612 to be fair it does happen the other way around too, for example the name Alexander becomes Eskandar and Sekander in Middle Eastern History, like the 'L' never existed!
@@emadbagheri yeah but these are historical dialectic differences. I love americans in certain ways, but their pronounciation even of their own language is ridiculous.
Thank You, Mike Duncan! A Perfect Storm's overuse gives me murderous ulcers. While we're at it, fuck Game Plan. Are you playing a sport? No? Then it's a fucking plan!
Treason is often a relative concept and loyalty is often the motive for backstabbing... Men have many loyalties; state, sovereign, family, friends, laws, principles... and they can all contradict one another. Sometimes you just gotta weigh 'em up. The Gallic Empire is a good example. Ideally of course those loyalties are all supposed to compliment each other, but how often are circumstances ideal?
Gallienus seems like he was a fairly competent Emperor. The fact that he recognized his father couldn't be saved & focused on protecting Italy seems to suggest he knew what was important. If he hadn't been betrayed, he might've been able to stabilize the empire.
Makes it much sadder when fools ran the empire. Imagine it had been run by the likes of Augustus or Caesar for the whole time? Would probably still be around...they lost the virtue of the Roman heart
A big part of the reason Rome fell is because of the corruption of its own leaders, very little foresight into the damage it caused their whole country.
He says, at around 1:42:20, that when the Emperor minted more (debased) coins, causing inflation, it wiped out the savings of all the citizens who has hoarded the older, valuable coins. This is incorrect. What he describes is what happens to _fiat_ money (money that has no intrinsic value) in periods of inflation. Coins containing precious metals will _not_ loose their value when debased coins (coins containing less silver or gold than they are supposed to) are introduced into circulation, since they still contain a higher percentage of precious metals. What will happen instead is that the older, 'good' money will increase, in value, compared to the debased coinage.
@CipiRipi00 Are you seriously trying to have me believe that theyd show shiny golden colored bronze coins off as silver denarii? Also keep in mind 1800 years has passed since then not 8.
@@CaptainGrimes1 he means compared to what the earlier weeks covered, say, during the Roman Republic, when a hundred years could pass in a single upload (on this channel, which compiles several weeks' worth of Mike Duncan's recordings)
@@jtzoltan I wasn't replying to the original poster but the guy under him who said there were a lot more people in 3rd century Europe which is incorrect!
Do I hear the Sassanid king's name being pronounced Shar-poor? Is that a latinized version? In Persian the name is Shah-poor, shah=king and Poor=son of/born of.
@@icedragon23472 Idk; thats just language differences. I find it weirder that the Sassanids would still call their Shah "Shahpur"(Shah's Son) if; you know; the son now is the Shah 😅
Many years ago, I had a dream: "You must read Gibbon!" Which I dutifully did. Then I had another dream: "It would have been better if Rome had dissolved in the 3rd century!" I could sortof figure how that could make sense by not having the Catholic Church conflate with imperial power. But after watching these episodes, I have a different understanding: Debasement of the currency is one of the cruelest froms of defrauding the citizens, transferring power from those who work to those who issue (counterfeit) money. In the process, everyone gets to defraud everyone else, except those at the very bottom of this pyramid scheme. They'll just have to struggle to survive, as their sparse income no longer are able to purchase the bare necessities of food, shelter and energy. Copmaring to the situation today would be way too unsettling.
You may be interested in a few studies done in systems collapse theory applied to bronze age collapse they identify two things that seem to precede civilization collapses: housing crisis, currency devaluation
To me, I oversimplify a Perfect Storm as, a bunch a mini crisis's combining to make one Uber crisis. They ping of each other, adding and feeding off another, till one more outside party launches an endeavor an disrupts the whole balance of power, then you have a tit for tat game that escalates between the 2 (or more) "parties"... American Civil War, WWI. The Great Depression is about how economic downturn leads to more economic downturn. Crazy how one issue exacerbates all the others like a house of cards... Like if electricity went out.
Mike used all of the primary sources for the Roman period such as Livy and Tacitus. Whatever the primary source would be for what he was talking about at the time. Caesar wrote about the Gallic Wars that he fought in so that was used as a source for those episodes. I know he also used Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire heavily for the later centuries. Here is a list of Roman historians on wiki. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Latin_historians
Yes there is and I plan on uploading those as well when am finished with Mike's podcast. Here is the History Of Byzantium Podcast. thehistoryofbyzantium.com/
The History of Byzantium Podcast is still ongoing. Given that it has only recently reached the year 1000, and Constantinople does not fall to the Ottomans until 1453, I'd say this podcast will be continuing for quite some time!
The Roman empire had an appalling political system.Power passed from one emperor to another mainly by civil war or murder. The republic between 135 BC and 28 BC wasn’t much better.The republic between 509 BC and roughly 150 BC, when internal violence was rare, and nearly all citizens were militiamen, and there was no standing army, was Rome’s golden age.
In hindsight, Augustus after winning against Mark Anthony should have assembled 40 legions or over 200k legionaires, supported with a further 200k militia and just embark on an extermination campaign on all of the Germanic people and then the Parthians. Promising the soldiers all of the conquered loot and the lands of the exterminated people.
The first problem with this is when this should have taken place: the economy was weaker by the Crisis of the 2nd century; there was less trade, meaning less money and taxes from paying troops; there was political instability and the Cyprian plague made recruitment difficult. Basically, it was difficult to raise troops, taxes, and, if you failed you could murdered by any institution including the senate, the army, the praetorian. It was pretty much impossible to achieve what you mention. The main reason for recruitment problems was that big land owners wanted to keep their slaves and serfs because they made more money that they, but also because the ruling oligarchy had nowhere to unleash their energies into. This led to a kind of "proto-feudalism".
I'm thinking you guys misunderstood Rome in general and Augustus especially. As much as many historians want to make the Romans out to be selfish imperialist out for land, money and conquest at the cost of however many people, that just simply isn't true. Assimilation and a good, honorable reputation was the bedrock of most of their late republic and early imperial conquest, so it would've run contrary to their nature and the entire purpose of their expansion. However I have no doubt if Agrippa was still alive at that moment he would have made at least a couple more plays for Germania.
Is it only 300%? I've heard that the purchasing power of a dollar in 2000, was equal to the purchasing power of a penny in 1900-1915. And it seems like the purchasing power of a dollar in the year 2000 would be equal to 2 or 3 dollars today, but that could be wrong.
Scrooge McDuck, huh? Unbelievable! I'm telling you that such flippant asides have got no place in a thoughtful presentation of the history of Rome -- your assumption that "most" of your listeners first learned of inflation from Disney is daft and your recounting of the plot of the cartoon certainly distracts from the subject matter of the episode.
