This video was inspired by Maiorianus' video about him which had a different and fairly negative opinion of him. You can watch his video here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-32oWCDlaa6U.html
@@hia5235 I have just tried to be fair, I myself consider Honorius to be a dreadful emperor but after learning about what actually happened during his reign, there are others who should certainly share the blame, such as Constantine III and Olympius but also the Germans and Goths were not without their own agency and their successful ability to pressurise and disrupt the empire should also not be forgotten.
Problem is more “active” doesn’t really mean better lol, just like provoking the Bulgarians by his taxing methods Yeah he was “proactive” but that really backfire so bad
@@stepanpytlik4021 What Angel said there is true. Just cause they were more active, doesn't mean they were good or better. Causing a revolt that creates a new Empire at the expense of your own territory & then you ignore everything going on around you while only caring about keeping your power as your Empire crumbles
He was the worst for the imperial Rome before the East by far. So many significant events leading to the fall of the Empire occured under his reign. Many mistakes could have been avoided. Without Constantius the III being there it would have gotten even worse. Also it was Constantius the III who had Olympius killed by clubbing as revenge for Stillicho. Not Honorius. We cannot take away Honorius who appointed Olympius in the first place
Worst emperor imo is Alexios III. Others such as Phocas, Honorius, Valentinian III etc, still ruled the Roman world while it still had a considerable amount of land and power to it, Alexios III ruled at an extremely volatile time, and although he did attempt to take action during his reign, his cowardice and overall bad decision making led to Rome's greatest deathblow (the sack of Constantinople).
I don't know, man. I agree that not everything bad that happened during his reign is directly Honorius' fault, but he's still one of the worst Western emperors I can think of. For the sack of Rome, he could have played ball with Alaric and just given him some of the more reasonable concessions he was asking for. I'm not saying he could have stopped them militarily, but he had plenty of opportunities to negotiate and he literally didn't do ANYTHING. Also, what about the massacre of the civilian Goth families living in Italy in 408? That was a needlessly cruel policy that accomplished nothing but alienating thousands of Gothic soldiers and sending them defecting to Alaric. And while it's true that the blame for that incident and other things like Stilicho's execution should also be shared with Olympius and other members of the court, Honorius wasn't a child emperor by that point, he was in his mid-20s. If corrupt courtiers have that much control over you and consistently push you into making bad decisions, you're a bad emperor. I don't view him as evil, but he sat passively on the throne for 30 years during a time of incredible turmoil for the empire, and at multiple pivotal moment his decisions were disastrous. If that doesn't make him at least a strong candidate for worst emperor, I don't know what does.
Senator: "...And that's all we know so far, Caesar" Honorius: "So that's how the holy city of Rome ended up, isn't it? Ransacked by a bunch of filthy, uncivilized barbarians..." *laughs* Senator: "Caesar...Are you okay?" Honorius: You know? All of this reminds me a story my father once told me when I was a child to teach me about the degeneracies of paganism: Once upon a time, there was an emperor known to all as "Caligula". He had an intense incestuous affair with his own sister Drusilla, who always told him how to rule the Empire. After Drusilla prematurely died from illness, Caligula spent the rest of his life mourning her death..." Senator: "I don't get it, Caesar. What does that story have to do with the barbarians sacking Rome?" Honorius: "Because I always found that story laughable, as it was about a pathetic man who cried over the death of a person who controlled him. Now that Stilicho can no longer advise me, I feel the same desperation Caligula once had. May God forgive me..."
Personally, I think Honorius's nephew Valentinian III was the worst emperor. Valentinian not only neglected his duties, but also personally assassinated Flavius Aetius (the man saved Rome from Attila the Hun) just because he feared a possible coup against him, a stupid action that ironically caused Valentinian's death by Aetius' men and an increased political instability . Honorius, at least, was just misguided by his advisers, but Valentinian only brought misery to the Empire despite the wise advice his mother Galla Placidia gave to him
Having watched this, it's nice to see someone that actually agrees with me on him being not *that* bad. I can tell you've read McEvoy's book on the puppet emperors, it's very good and (much as I think it massively undersells Galla Placidia) makes a strong case for most of its arguments. The amount of times I've seen people blame him for Stilicho's death when Olympius *cut down his entire ministry in front of him* is just unreasonable, and compared to Petronius Maximus or Commodus he really didn't do much to actively fuck up the empire. Seeing anything online that isn't just "WRE bad except for Majorian", especially as well-researched as this, is a nice breath of fresh air. The Empire had good generals/regents from 395-461 damnit, even if the emperors weren't that great One thing I will note is that if a city has previously resorted to cannibalism and you are getting a really generous offer, it might be best to take it. While Olympius is predominately responsible, power did fluctuate a lot and at no point did Honorius seriously try to independently negotiate a peace. Even if he was unable to for whatever reason, he left Rome to be captured by Alaric with the most important people and huge portions of the treasury still inside, at least some of which could have been removed between the sieges. Also, from a personal standpoint, his sister (who might have been as young as 18) was captured and he gave zero shits. That's just cold, man. I know the experience probably formed her into the experienced and successful politician she became, but it's hard to say that was anything but morally bankrupt.
Of course he was not the 'worst' by any stretch of the imagination. Caracella and Domitian were also not as bad as their 'Historians' stated they were. It depends on WHO is writing their 'bios'. Look at what Tacitus did to Tiberius. It would be like Jim Acosta writing a history on Donald Trump; not exactly impartial. I would state that Without the Reign of Tiberius, Octavian's Fraudulent Principate would not have endured and would have imploded before the Flavians came anywhere near to it. Octavians 'glorious' place in history was saved and assured by his Stepson that he had to adopt but wouldn't of Had he had the choice. Many of the problems Tiberius had to deal with he 'inherited' from his Step Uncle when he 'kicked the bucket'; not so unlike Honorius had happen to him.
@@Dbusdriver71 You'd be surprised how many people blame him personally for every single bad thing that happened to the Empire between 395 and 423, for Stilicho in particular.
The Emperor had the final say in all issues, although, you can argue some had less influence than others. However, what about the bizarre decision that was made by Honorius during the early 5th-century A.D. In the autumn of 408 A.D. Alaric, in control of a colossal Gothic army placed pressure on Rome and was inevitably paid 5,000 pounds of gold and 30,000 of silver, among other expensive items. Not content with this, Alaric, sought further negotiations but these were thwarted by Olympius and naturally angered the former. Unable to offer resistance to Alaric, the Emperor Honorius received a demand from Alaric of a fixed amount of gold and corn to be provided to him each year, and that his followers should be settled in Noricum and Dalmatia. The final demand from his side was that he be made Magister Utriusque Militiae. Honorius refused the military rank but agreed to the rest. The court of Honorius replied with an insulting letter that was read out to Alaric and the latter stormed out of the negotiations. However, fascinatingly, Alaric changed his mind and returned with a second request. ‘They said that Alaric did not want office or honour, nor did he now wish to settle in the provinces previously specified, but only the two Noricums which are on the far reaches of the Danube, are subject to continual incursions, and pay little tax to the treasury… Thus there could be friendship and alliance between him and the Romans against everyone who took up arms and was roused to war against the emperor.’ Zosimus New History 5.50 📗✍ Gone was the putative Gothic protectorate, the payments of gold, and the Goths would agree to live quietly in a frontier province and, more or less, offer to fight in the name of the Roman Empire. The historian Olympiodorus noted that the revised terms were supremely reasonable but once more the offer was rejected. Around one year late Rome would be sacked by the forces of Alaric. Honorius was not a competent emperor and you can dress anything you want to if it helps but he had the chance to allow Alaric to defend the empire in the name of the empire. Now, you and most people could say, 'how much can you trust Alaric', and that is a fair question. However, when you are travelling across the empire with not just your army, but your wives, children, parents, etc., this is not a mission of slaughter and declaring war, but, in my opinion, trying to survive and Alaric knew Rome was his peoples best chance to survive, and he was the leader of his people and he tried to make it work and Honorius rejected it. I am not sure where you got the idea that the treasury in 410 A.D. was in a healthy position, while I specialise in the Roman Empire from 250-450 A.D. through my double degrees, I am not an expert on Rome's treasury. I will not blame him for every bad thing that fell on the empire but as emperors go, he was one of the worst and I would argue he was the worst emperor. A good article which addressed the 'Alaric seeking territory issue' is, 'Why Did the Barbarian Cross the Rhine?' by Peter Heather. I do agree with you that there was good people during the Western Empire at this time, I would say one of the most important was Flavius Aetius and Avitus, without the latter, then perhaps the defeat of Attila the Hun at Battle of the Catalaunian Plains would not have been possible. Too quick are people to ignore anything to do with the Roman Empire after Marcus Aurelius. On a side note I do love how people simply forget the Eastern Roman Empire and are so eager to ignore it. It was very much one of the reasons why the Western Empire was not ransacked further as the Eastern Roman Empire still commanded the largest army in the world during this time. I am not trying to be confrontational and I would wholly welcome anyone to come join me on my discord, my twitch stream and discuss the troubling events of the Roman Empire.
The Emperor had the final say in all issues, although, you can argue some had less influence than others. However, what about the bizarre decision that was made by Honorius during the early 5th-century A.D. In the autumn of 408 A.D. Alaric, in control of a colossal Gothic army placed pressure on Rome and was inevitably paid 5,000 pounds of gold and 30,000 of silver, among other expensive items. Not content with this, Alaric, sought further negotiations but these were thwarted by Olympius and naturally angered the former. Unable to offer resistance to Alaric, the Emperor Honorius received a demand from Alaric of a fixed amount of gold and corn to be provided to him each year, and that his followers should be settled in Noricum and Dalmatia. The final demand from his side was that he be made Magister Utriusque Militiae. Honorius refused the military rank but agreed to the rest. The court of Honorius replied with an insulting letter that was read out to Alaric and the latter stormed out of the negotiations. However, fascinatingly, Alaric changed his mind and returned with a second request. ‘They said that Alaric did not want office or honour, nor did he now wish to settle in the provinces previously specified, but only the two Noricums which are on the far reaches of the Danube, are subject to continual incursions, and pay little tax to the treasury… Thus there could be friendship and alliance between him and the Romans against everyone who took up arms and was roused to war against the emperor.’ Zosimus New History 5.50 📗✍ Gone was the putative Gothic protectorate, the payments of gold, and the Goths would agree to live quietly in a frontier province and, more or less, offer to fight in the name of the Roman Empire. The historian Olympiodorus noted that the revised terms were supremely reasonable but once more the offer was rejected. Around one year late Rome would be sacked by the forces of Alaric. Honorius was not a competent emperor and you can dress anything you want to if it helps but he had the chance to allow Alaric to defend the empire in the name of the empire. Now, you and most people could say, 'how much can you trust Alaric', and that is a fair question. However, when you are travelling across the empire with not just your army, but your wives, children, parents, etc., this is not a mission of slaughter and declaring war, but, in my opinion, trying to survive and Alaric knew Rome was his peoples best chance to survive, and he was the leader of his people and he tried to make it work and Honorius rejected it. I am not sure where you got the idea that the treasury in 410 A.D. was in a healthy position, while I specialise in the Roman Empire from 250-450 A.D. through my double degrees, I am not an expert on Rome's treasury. I will not blame him for every bad thing that fell on the empire but as emperors go, he was one of the worst and I would argue he was the worst emperor. A good article which addressed the 'Alaric seeking territory issue' is, 'Why Did the Barbarian Cross the Rhine?' by Peter Heather. I do agree with you that there was good people during the Western Empire at this time, I would say one of the most important was Flavius Aetius and Avitus, without the latter, then perhaps the defeat of Attila the Hun at Battle of the Catalaunian Plains would not have been possible. Too quick are people to ignore anything to do with the Roman Empire after Marcus Aurelius. On a side note I do love how people simply forget the Eastern Roman Empire and are so eager to ignore it. It was very much one of the reasons why the Western Empire was not ransacked further as the Eastern Roman Empire still commanded the largest army in the world during this time. I am not trying to be confrontational and I would wholly welcome anyone to come join me on my discord, my twitch stream and discuss the troubling events of the Roman Empire.
I think Honorius was an Emperor of "His" time. Look at how much of a difference he was from his father Theodosius. Theodosius was a military Emperor that won victory on the battle fields. And ruled Rome as a whole empire.Where Honorius was given a "protector" by his father. So Stilicho filled this role of military prefect. To much of the detriment of Honorius being able to demonstrate a "Emperor" image. When you constantly have to ask where your protector is! And you gotta remember in the days of Honorius the "Roman" army was just as barbarian as the ones they were fighting against! If Honorius would have relented and given Alaric a military title,then the barbarian army that sacked Rome could have just as quickly been a " Roman" army instead! It was a time when the title of Emperor did not have the type of allegiance it did in the past. Goths,Alans,Vandals & Huns had more allegiance to tribal Kings that could give them gold. Honorius was just another tribal king that could occasionally give u gold. The difference was his father had been a Roman emperor. Emperor use to mean the most powerful man around. In Honorius day he was just one of many warlords. I give him him credit for lasting as long ad he did. And dying as emperor. Others that held the title couldn't say as much. And he showed Alaric that Emperors are not to be bullied.
Yes, he WAS that bad and beyond TERRIBLE. Vastly accelerated Rome's demise (starting by doing nothing when it was sacked). Abandoned Brittania. Killed his greatest general.
@@daniellinanmolina1044 he didn't even bother with the administration he was a ladyboy who just wanted to party. Even Caligula and Nero did some positive things for the empire.
Honorius: DOC CHICKEN DOC CHICKEN DOC CHICKEN DOC CHICKEN DOC CHICKEN DOC CHICKEN DOC CHICKEN DOC CHICKEN DOC CHICKEN Stilicho & Theodosius I: ·_· Alaric I: I don't want to destroy Rome, but only the chicken lover forced me to do that. Constantius III: Don't worry, I am in charge.
A bit of context is in order. The Roman empire to me, having taken a good look at it, was nothing else than the arrogant, racist and punitive United States of it's epoch. Having attended segregated Riverside, southern California school as a child, which demonstrated for me a deliberately careless version of education, and insults for demonstrating too much intelligence,which I could only be "faking" being of mixed Spanish and Mexican Indian descent. And later in an extremely racist central California high school, in a horrible totally controlled agribiz company town I could perceive some of the same pernicious attitudes and punitive consequences which Rome undoubtably had for non-Romans. Reading, or viewing RU-vids of my antecedent Visigoths and Ostrogoths experiences with Rome, I discovered that blue eyes were demonised. The found Goth DNA is varied because, great warriors, this germanic tribe attracted other tribes, and even Romans who preferred not to live in Rome. The media glorification of empire is to me very unrealistic and socially harmful. Rome must have been a very unfriendly and violent place to live if you weren't a Roman.
The Emperor had the final say in all issues, although, you can argue some had less influence than others. However, what about the bizarre decision that was made by Honorius during the early 5th-century A.D. In the autumn of 408 A.D. Alaric, in control of a colossal Gothic army placed pressure on Rome and was inevitably paid 5,000 pounds of gold and 30,000 of silver, among other expensive items. Not content with this, Alaric, sought further negotiations but these were thwarted by Olympius and naturally angered the former. Unable to offer resistance to Alaric, the Emperor Honorius received a demand from Alaric of a fixed amount of gold and corn to be provided to him each year, and that his followers should be settled in Noricum and Dalmatia. The final demand from his side was that he be made Magister Utriusque Militiae. Honorius refused the military rank but agreed to the rest. The court of Honorius replied with an insulting letter that was read out to Alaric and the latter stormed out of the negotiations. However, fascinatingly, Alaric changed his mind and returned with a second request. ‘They said that Alaric did not want office or honour, nor did he now wish to settle in the provinces previously specified, but only the two Noricums which are on the far reaches of the Danube, are subject to continual incursions, and pay little tax to the treasury… Thus there could be friendship and alliance between him and the Romans against everyone who took up arms and was roused to war against the emperor.’ Zosimus New History 5.50 📗✍ Gone was the putative Gothic protectorate, the payments of gold, and the Goths would agree to live quietly in a frontier province and, more or less, offer to fight in the name of the Roman Empire. The historian Olympiodorus noted that the revised terms were supremely reasonable but once more the offer was rejected. Around one year late Rome would be sacked by the forces of Alaric. Honorius was not a competent emperor and you can dress anything you want to if it helps but he had the chance to allow Alaric to defend the empire in the name of the empire. Now, you and most people could say, 'how much can you trust Alaric', and that is a fair question. However, when you are travelling across the empire with not just your army, but your wives, children, parents, etc., this is not a mission of slaughter and declaring war, but, in my opinion, trying to survive and Alaric knew Rome was his peoples best chance to survive, and he was the leader of his people and he tried to make it work and Honorius rejected it. I am not sure where you got the idea that the treasury in 410 A.D. was in a healthy position, while I specialise in the Roman Empire from 250-450 A.D. through my double degrees, I am not an expert on Rome's treasury. I will not blame him for every bad thing that fell on the empire but as emperors go, he was one of the worst and I would argue he was the worst emperor. A good article which addressed the 'Alaric seeking territory issue' is, 'Why Did the Barbarian Cross the Rhine?' by Peter Heather. I do agree with you that there was good people during the Western Empire at this time, I would say one of the most important was Flavius Aetius and Avitus, without the latter, then perhaps the defeat of Attila the Hun at Battle of the Catalaunian Plains would not have been possible. Too quick are people to ignore anything to do with the Roman Empire after Marcus Aurelius. On a side note I do love how people simply forget the Eastern Roman Empire and are so eager to ignore it. It was very much one of the reasons why the Western Empire was not ransacked further as the Eastern Roman Empire still commanded the largest army in the world during this time. I am not trying to be confrontational and I would wholly welcome anyone to come join me on my discord, my twitch stream and discuss the troubling events of the Roman Empire.
I think it is a fair point, why did Honorius refuse Alaric's perhaps reasonable demands. I don't believe I ever said Honorius' treasury had recovered in 410. The removal of Attalus and his treat to Africa would have certainly helped but it is well recorded that Honorius was constantly short of money during this period, especially after exempting much of Italy from taxes which it could not pay anyway because of the Visigoths. I think the only thing I do say is that in 410, Honorius decided to redirect his attention to Constantine III since the Visigoths were far away in southern Italy and were a bit less bellicose under Ataulf. I do agree that the west was resuscitated by the many able men that were around in the fifth century. Constantius III I think gets forgotten about far too readily or Honorius' role in placing him in the primary position of power to effect those successes. I welcome the considered response and hope this finds you well.
By this era, so much happened every year versus how stable the empire was in the past. I think he did a decent job. People underestimate how fractured the aristocracy was by this era. Also, Valentinian III was much worse.
It is also worth considering how another emperor would have dealt with a triple crisis of the Visigoths in Italy, the Alans on the Rhine and the usurpations in Britain all at the same time.
As a Historian i also think Honorius gets a bad rep, many of his policies were not that bad and he was able to hold to power until death in a very volatile world where emperors died quite quickly, Honorius to be able to hold to power probably was a gifted politician and he showed understanding of logistics and concentration of force by leaving Britain, he also ended a civil war and directed Roman resources against the invaders by turning Constantine III Co-Emperor. About Rome's Sacking, he failed because he went for a "all or nothing" policy to crush the Goths, had Rome stood the Goths would have being screwed by the lack of food and supplies, in hindsight he should have negotiated.
It's because Honorius was such an empty headed fool that it's more advantageous to use him as a puppet to advance their own ambitions. Rather than kill him and risk him being replaced by an actually competent heir.
Far from being perfect, I believe Honorius is always treated too harshly. He was very young when he started reigning but Stilicho guided him well (the circumstances of Stilicho's death were unknown to me, and the reality is that Honorius had no other choice). I also think he exercised more power than his brother Arcadius in the East and even Theodosius II. Valentinian III's reign did more harm. Also the "Roma" chicken tale has done a lot of harm to his memory. And don't ask me why, but I have always kept some sympathy for Honorius
@@EasternRomanHistory hello fellow roman. i might not have been the best emperor but certainly i was not the worst and i was only 11 when my father died at milan in january 395. i inherited a dying empire in the west due to numerous civil wars my father fought in 388 and 392 most of the western army was gone. it was a tough situation stilicko tried to solve making treaties with the germans in the rhine frontier but that did not last long. also there's an explanation as to why the families of the german mercenairies were wiped out in italy after the revolution that brought down stilicko ((there was a huge uprising against the strong german element by the roman army which went jealous of the power german federates had in the roman army so i was given no choice but to order stilickos' execution in august 408 and beep olympius ordered that fateful massacre of the germans in italy)), causing alaric to take the upper hand and as a result he sucked rome in 410 a disaster i never wanted but unfortunately sarus the goth thought otherwise as he never wanted me and alaric to come to an agreement and he attacked alaric before our final meeting which would give alaric land in noricum. so things are not so simple if u don't know all the facts.
One thing I don't get is while the people were rioting and lynching, why didn't anyone kill honorius? What compelled them to kill the friends and associates of the emperor but not the emperor himself?
it is true that roman politics from theodosius death to odoacer entering ravenna are really hard to understand. no doubt honorius was lost in the midst and did not make great decisions
Yeah but other child emperors like severus alexander actually tried to do something. Honorius was thrust into a turbulent empire at a young age and the most important thing in those time is to take action and be decisive, honorius sadly decided to not do anything and just stay in his palace.
@@daniellinanmolina1044 he kickstarded the crisis of the third century tho. And even being a good general he got killed by his own troops so theres that.
@@d.cirovic1695 to be honest i dont even remember commenting that. anyways, i pretty much stand by it. he was a competent military man, but he lacked in politics. imposing too strong of a discipline did not work in these times unless you were aurelian, so its easy to understand why he died
