A special shout-out to all the people who recently donated to us via Super Thanks 🤗: 🧡 @julius williams 🧡 @Mauro Merali 🧡 @Rank of Master 🧡 @JeffTownUSA 🧡 @Eisenpfosten 🧡 @Squire Waldo 🧡 @Ruufus De Leon 🧡 @David Keane 🧡 @Kevin Gomez 🧡 @scrot 🧡 @Xina Marie Uhl 🧡 @Aaron Flynn 🧡 @Robert 🧡 @Gary Worthington 🧡 @howtorideahorse 🧡 @Franz Nowak 🧡 @(Ἰάσων) Sobek Lord of the Four Corners 🧡 @michael porzio 🧡 @David Batlle Thank you so much for your generous support and for believing in us 🙏 Your host, Sebastian
This episode left me feeling sad… I can’t imagine being there to watch the decay. I guess I can take solace in the fact that no one will lament the passing of cold war government buildings… an old sod house has more class! The real tragedy was the losses of the people, can you imagine telling your children “we used to be able to do these things”? The loss of knowledge was heartbreaking.
Think of Detroit, one of America's most prosperous and successful cities by the 1920s -- center of the automotive industry -- yet within no more than 50 years, it turned into a decaying depopulated, crime-ridden hellhole. Detroit's population at its peak in 1950 was almost 2 million people. Today it is only a third of that.
Luckily - very luckily. ever since Raphael being assigned the first or was he the second city-archeologist - there were many drawings made... - ere they demolished the buildings, and the papal 'city archeologist' would regularily visit the chalk-ovens to rescue artwork from chalk-burning. - But sorrily for us now: I saw pages of roman artwork-compendiums from the renaissance and the baroque sold - all cut up and per leaf in modern antiquaries... I hope at least one book still exists per edition, but I'm not very certain, given the recent scandals with italian state-librarians cutting up the old books in their care and selling them themselves...
And that is after Rome was made capital of Italy in 1871 Who knows whether Rome would ever reach 1 million again if the city was never made as the capital of a larger nation
"Stilicho was a good man. I am glad that, at least, he isn't here to see what I did to the Empire he gave his life to protect...You know? Despite being a barbarian, Stilicho was probably the only man I ever knew who truly deserved to be considered... a Roman..." *-Emperor Honorius shortly after the sacking of Rome*
🇮🇹😫😫😫 (google translate) Rome has two famous faces, the classic imperial one and the flamboyant one of the popes. But between the splendor of the two periods lies almost a millennium in which she was dying. At the height of the empire, towards the second century AD, the city was home to more than one million inhabitants. However, by the end of the sixth century there were only 20,000 survivors of a multitude of wars, famines and plagues. The merchants, sailors, prostitutes, workers and plebs were gone, while the nobility had set sail for Constantinople. Rome was no longer caput mundi. Indeed, it was governed as a province of the Byzantine Empire. Seen from the top of the hills, the city still had the fascinating skyline of its glorious past: the mammoth statues, the squares covered with marble, the decorated columns, the gaudy bronze roofs, the patrician villas and islands, the condominiums soared. of the plebs. Yet, it was a ghost town: the streets were covered with moss and the buildings shrouded in ivy, inhabited by foxes and owls. The Tiber had overflowed many times and the lack of maintenance meant that a layer of hardened mud lined the streets. One of the most impressive buildings, the Flavian amphitheater, or the Colosseum, had closed its doors for years. The last shows dated back to about sixty years earlier, that is to the time of Theodoric, who had the basement buried so as not to have to pay for maintenance. In front of the Colosseum still stood the statue of Nero, which was 34 meters high, had ten floors and was all in bronze. She was the colossus from which the amphitheater takes its name. Once it must have been dazzling, but after so much neglect it was blackened by time and her arms were missing: it is said that it was Pope Gregory the Great who gave the order to mutilate it to recover the metal and melt it. In the following years Gregory the Great will complete the work by taking the rest. He was a devoted and pragmatic pope who, with the removal of a false god, combined the profit of the precious metal to help the poor of the city. The Via Sacra starts at the foot of the Colosseum and reaches the other monumental heart of Rome, the Campo Marzio: at the time the imposing basilicas - where traders once gathered -, the enormous theaters of Pompeo and Marcello and the luxurious spa of Agrippa. The list of magnificence is long, but the small population no longer knew what to do with so much architectural clamor. The few inhabitants, accustomed to abandonment, did not care for the weeds or mud that, having settled, had raised the level of the road, and did their best to open paths that wedged into the scrub that had grown between the temples. Small trees had grown on the streets which, over time, would become centuries-old oaks, clearly visible by Charlemagne when, in the 19th century, he made his entrance from the north along via Lata, today's via del Corso. The nascent religious tourism that came from northern Europe to visit the holy places of the martyrs traveled that same road. And the black market for relics began to flourish and organized visits that, for a few coins, led pilgrims to kneel in front of the grill where Saint Lawrence had been burned alive, or the red marble column where Saint Bibiana had suffered the torture of the scourging. with leaded ropes. But where did what remained of the population go? Where were the descendants of those who had been the lords of all Europe? They were probably concentrated between the left bank of the Tiber and the Trastevere district, drinking in the taverns obtained from the old pagan temples. Who knows if they remembered the greatness of the Roman Empire or if they wondered who had built that huge city. The level of literacy of the plebs, very high in classical Rome, had plummeted: reading and writing had become the prerogative of the upper classes. The people of Trastevere lived in crumbling islands and worked in small town businesses. They were potters, ranchers, farmers. Survivors of a pagan world now outdated, they reused what they found buried under the rubble of imperial Rome: dishes, fabrics, tools. When one insula collapsed, the inhabitants moved to another: the availability of empty houses was so high that there was no need to build new ones. Nonetheless, it was a precarious condition: the latrines did not drain, the sewers no longer had maintenance and the Church and the civil administration bounced back the responsibility for cleaning the streets. The water situation was also dramatic. The sixteen aqueducts - which in the imperial era brought tons of fresh water from the Apennines daily - had been cut by the Goths in the first siege of Rome (537-538), and since then maintenance had been very intermittent. Fifty years later, Gregory the Great complained in one of his epistles about the conditions of the few aqueducts, barely still functioning. The vegetation had corroded the centuries-old lead pipes and the roots had undermined the foundations. The spas for which Rome was famous had been closed for decades. The luxurious palaces where the emperors once resided still stood out on the Palatine Hill, now converted into the seat of the administration of Constantinople: prestigious offices and residences for Byzantine notables, officials and the small military garrison stationed in the city. They were the privileges of expats who worked in a poor country and didn't want to mix with the local population. The centuries will pass: the city will trudge, the squares will sink into the earth turning into woods, the buildings will collapse and the inhabitants will recycle the materials to make new constructions. Instead of clearing the wide and straight roads of the Romans who preceded them, the population will open narrow and winding paths to get around trees and rubble. The salvation of the city will be the fact of being the papal seat, a privilege that will allow it to be one of the most important centers of the Italian early Middle Ages. Yet, for a long time, nothing will be able to counter the feeling of estrangement in admiring a city so large, so monumental and so hopelessly empty.
This is a good story, thanks; Rome has always capture my mind, what is like living in that era, why that monuments destruction has all over the centuries passed away , the obscurity of glorious past. I think is a reflection how all the things change over the time, nothing last forever ,is beauty see some of this relics in the present.
I visited Roma in 2018 and was actually impressed by the number of old buildings still standing or incorporated into more modern ones. If I was to compare it to say London, there is very little left of Roman Londinium to see, as again the buildings blocks were re-used over the centuries. The same goes for all the villas dotted around the country and of course Hadrian's Wall, which is not much bigger than a field wall now. The only Roman building that I know of that is intact for the most part is the Roman baths in Bath.
Wroxeter, Roman Viroconium, one of the largest settlements of Roman Britain, has Roman remains above ground and its CoE parish church uses a lot of Roman material, like in Leicester and its bath ruins with a parish church alongside. It remained inhabited with simpler, but Roman style wooden halls replacing what couldn't be repaired, and became the capital of a small Brittonic post Roman kingdom. Londinium, by contract, became virtually deserted for a time. It's stout Roman walls ensured that didn't last, as far I know, the city wall remnants are the only visible Roman remain in London. Rome itself, any stout or notable building, particularly made in the extraordinary Roman concrete became a fortress for a notable Roman family or church. Roman British structures, apart from fortification seem mostly to have been of a modest size.
As far as I know Britain was conquered to cut off gauls from their islander cousins, and because of tin and other raw materials, but it was like a colony at the very fringe of the roman empire. I see britains took pride in preserving the many but not so big ruins from roman times.
There’s loads of still intact Roman Buildings all over Europe. The best preserved temple is probably the Maison carrée in Nîmes, France and of course The Pantheon. Edit… nevermind I see you are talking about London, then no they ain’t Jack left other than a couple of wall remnants and obviously archaeological remains.
@@flyingisaac2186 Modern scholars claim, the basilica in Londinium was a size comparable to St Paul’s cathedral. But in Britain they couldn’t use Roman concrete due to the lack of volcanic sand. That made buildings less resistant, of course
A special shout-out to all the people who recently donated to us via Super Thanks 🤗: 🧡 @julius williams 🧡 @Rank of Master 🧡 @Mauro Merali 🧡 @JeffTownUSA 🧡 @Eisenpfosten 🧡 @Squire Waldo 🧡 @Ruufus De Leon 🧡 @David Keane 🧡 @Kevin Gomez 🧡 @scrot 🧡 @Xina Marie Uhl 🧡 @Aaron Flynn 🧡 @Robert 🧡 @Gary Worthington 🧡 @howtorideahorse 🧡 @Franz Nowak 🧡 @(Ἰάσων) Sobek Lord of the Four Corners 🧡 @michael porzio 🧡 @David Batlle Thank you so much for your generous support and for believing in us 🙏 Your host, Sebastian
Man I love your channel, you always hit on the stuff I *really* want to know about ancient Rome, like what things really would have looked like on the ground as someone living there during various transitions.
It sucks that so little of ancient Rome is left, but I'd imagine later imperial Romans felt the same sentiment towards buildings from the early republic. For Romans living in 400 AD I'm sure they had no idea how the city looked in 400 BC.
@@elscruffomcscruffy8371 well, do you mean worst because of the litter and trash everywhere? Because of this I can agree with you, but Rome instead has great architecture and feeling from medioeval / papal era plus the italian (since 1871). Some great roman monuments remained from ancient rome and it could help figure out how rome could have appeared to a provincial person. I think Rome gave the impression today new york city (to me, the current capital of the world) with his skyscrapers and bustling life to strangers. Take jn account every city in roman empire replicate Roman architecture but in a much smaller scale. As an italian our archeologists refuse any reconstructions, but circus maximus is a lawn and there is nothing to be lost in a reconstruction of what was the biggest stadium ever with 600000 seats . Athens (another disappointing city, really ugly except for the monuments ) rebuilt panathinaikon stadium and I think it was great. Germans rebuilt roman limes barracks and castra and it is great for educational purpose.
@@elscruffomcscruffy8371 back in cyprus there waere very nice greek city ruins with agora. I noticied a circular pit and the plaque tells in medieval times they put marble reliefs inside, crushed them then made bricks of marble powder. After christianity took place and roman senate/gov fell, people just looted and destroyed their own past. Just because it was pagan. Cancel culture is EXACTLY the same strange phenomena routinely resurfacing. Studing history is not a waste of time, because humans remains the same, we are mainly the genes and experiences of our ancestors. And odd enough we go crazy and destroy our past (same happened in russia, china vietnam during communism)
Many thanks, informative video. Kinda nice to find a content creator that is also into this period. What interests me mostly is how the Romans "forgot" how to Roman and basically their national identity erased in sorts. Looking forward to more content !
I know this will sound silly, but as an American it's really hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that there were entire civilizations that operated thousands of years ago and many of the modern cities are directly evolved from those times. For us, it feels like the world began as nothing but nature in the 1500s and just progressively got more and more civilized since.
Read Thomas Sowell's book "Dismantling America." He mentions that it took Western Civilization about 1,000 years to recover the standard of living Rome had around 400 AD. His point was that once a civilization falls apart in could stay down for generations. Given modern technology, with a mass surveillance capability, dissent could be suppressed to a scale never seen before. If Rome had not fallen and developed in the right way we might have put a man on the moon by 1,000 AD. We can only imagine where we might be today.
I'd look at it the other way. It wasn't that civilisation decayed during the Dark Ages, it was that Rome was way too advanced for antiquity. Through an incredibly fortuitous set of circumstances and the adoption of the 'never say die' attitude, Rome achieved a level of longterm peace and economic stability never seen in these lands until the modern era. It's a big exaggeration to say that we would have gone to the moon in 1000 A.D. Rome had centuries of stability yet produced precious little in terms of scientific advancement. At very best, we might have entered the scientific era around that time, but it still it would not mean that progress would be as rapid as in our time when, again, a set of fortuitous circumstances gave Western Europe a dramatic advantage over the rest of the world and caused rapid economic and technological development. When you look at how the rest of the world developed before Europeans arrived on the scene, one could very easily imagine a timeline where it's 2023 A.D. and we're still yet to have a scientific revolution!
To be fair, the fall of Rome isn't what slowed down technological progress, it was the spread of Christianity in Europe more than anything. The Middle East was still going strong during the medieval period, they created Algebra, made advancements in Physics, discovered calculus before it was rediscovered in Europe centuries later, and pioneered modern medicine. Europeans on the other hand purposefully made themselves more ignorant and burned a libraries and scientific literature, because knowledge of any kind besides the Bible was frowned upon. If Christianity never got a foothold maybe we'd be a little more advanced than we are today, but like I said progress wasn't lost it just wasn't happening in Europe anymore. The rest of the world didn't suffer a major civilization collapse, only Western Europe.
@@Calikid331the dark ages are a myth. Christian Europe literally went through several Renaissances including as early as Charlemagne. Everything we have preserved of the Middle Ages is from the Catholic Monastic movement, and the the university system was also created. Christianity didn't slow progress at all, it built it
It was the 847 earthquake that buried the church of Santa Maria Antica at the foot of the Palantine…It remained completely forgotten until the middle of this century when it was really discovered.
The habito was in the Campus Martius because the water source, which today supplies the Trevi fountain, was never interrupted because it was entirely underground.
This is a unique and excellent view of the decline of the city of Rome. It is also a sad commentary on the end of a classical civilization. Thank you much for your wonderful & brilliant videos.
Thank you for this video. I might add some things I thought of, if you don't mind. The walls of Rome were doubled in height under Honorius. This surely avoided any risk of the city falling by a pell mell assault with simpler equipment as happened with many Roman cities. Strangely compared to other shrunken cities is that the walls continued to be maintained on their old circuit. This I suppose can be explained by the Lateran basilica and palace plus other enclaves of population, some of which benefitted from restored aqueducts. Most as you note, had resorted to the hitherto lightly populated Campus Martius and regions like he Trastevere, which had St Maria in Trastevere, plus what became the Leonine Borgo. Other cities that collapsed in size (like Ephesus which consolidated to a hill top fortress), but Rome of the Popes still kept the old circuit in repair, and even extended them with the Leonine Borgo in the ninth century, as a result of Saracen raids which had done particular damage to the St Peters'. The Christian churches on a really large scale included the enormous old basilica of St Peter outside the walls, plus the episcopal Lateran archbasilica of St John Lateran with adjoining palace, formerly the site of the Equites Singulares and Domus Faustae. The theatre of Pompey had use as parts were given to churches (originally it was nominally a temple of Venus Genitrix as permanent theatres were nominally illegal when Pompey opened this area where Julius Caesar fell). It survived and became an Orsini fortress in the 13th century. A big factor for the theatre, as for the basilica of Maxentius, Pantheon and baths were that Roman concrete (far more durable than modern concrete) provided a structural core. The temple of Jupiter Optimus survived as a well preserved ruin until it became the site of a fine Renaissance palace, now Rome's city hall. Perhaps it was a solid marker for the luxury goods market located there during Roman times and after.
I would not use the word 'transformation' but rather disintegration or even destruction. But I read that as dire as the situation of Rome was in 1526, the horrific and savage attack by the german mercenary thugs of Charles V was far more severe than all the previous sacks of the former imperial city, and much more destructive to the remaining architecture.
I think the only reason such euphemisms appear is, it's our own ancestors who destroyed it, and it's so hard to accept XD No transformation - it was a constant decay till probably the end of WWII. We needed 15 centuries to catch up with what we once destroyed.
Germanic peoples have been responsible for no less than three major civilisation disruption events in the last 2 millenia. Lets hope they don't get to precipitate a fourth...
We should not blame the people who lived in harsh times. The same happened to Athens. People needed a place to live and at low cost. So they took building materials. On the contrary, if there is no need., they do preserve the buildings. In a small town of Peloponnese, a person was building a new house. He found a nice mosaic. He changed the plans of the house, created an aithrium and preserved it.
I keep wondering what NYC will look like 1,000 years from now. Seeing the decay of all those magnificent buildings, I also thought of the saying, "Lo, how the mighty have fallen."
The population chart at 2:55 was quite stark, even more than tales of cities like Detroit or Dayton, Ohio, for Rome reached insanely grand heights as the center of the much of the civilized world at the time, to a city where few civilians inhabited at one point
An excellent video. I have a question, what's your (and everyone's) opinion on rebuilding the ancient monuments and temples at the Forum Romanum? I mean, put them back as they were in the golden era.
Even though People say how great it would be, and while i must agree, we do not know exactly what these monuments looked like, and it would be very very expensive to do. Another point is that after all, by restoring these buildings to their ancient roman state, we would effectively be washing away the early 2000 years of history betweens those and our modern times. In general, i think that this topic is one massive dilemma.
Architects generally loathe the idea of building structures in old styles. They are the ultimate future-oriented professionals, and I think they would say that history had its way, and we must live for our time, not the past. I, personally, would love to see at least a few structures rebuilt!
The Western half of the empire "fell" in the 5th century, but ironically it was actually the Eastern Romans from Constantinople, who bear much of the blame for Rome's decline to a small village. The Ostrogothic king Theodoric, who ruled Italy early in the 6th century, sought to restore much of the damage to Rome, but after his death the Eastern Romans sought to re-capture the city, and the consequent damage caused by the Ostrogothic wars was actually far worse than the earlier "barbarian" sacking of the 5th century.
That's an interesting and evocative video - thanks. Do you know anything about distribution systems, especially food distribution? In classical times - indeed, any time including today - a town or city could only feed itself with what it grew within its boundaries, or what could be brought to it from farms no more than a day or so's journey away. (Today, of course, modern transport systems extend the reach of "a day or so's journey".) Do we know what happened to Rome's food distribution networks between, say, 400AD and 600AD?
I think just the image of people ripping the statues off Hadrian’s mausoleum and throwing them down on the besiegers is a poignant image by itself but so many to draw on
I don't know if this movie would be successful. It would be a sad, barbaric, violent destruction of Antiquity. First, in imperial hubris, Justinian tries to conquer Italy. The destruction is brutal, while lots of locals support the emperor. Then comes the Plague of Justinian, killing people left and right. Still, the war continues, everything is still becoming worse. After being brutality taxed by the empire, some locals switch side, fighting with the Goth. In the end, the Eastern Roman Empire wins, governing a depopulated, ruined wasteland which is a burden on its finances. Finally, the Langobards invade, taking over. At this point, the last remnants of Roman bureaucracy are gone. Almost nobody can read, most people are farmers. Long distance trade does exist, but on a tiny scale. Our intrepid heroes, having survived all of this, finally can... I don't know, become farmers like everybody else? The End
"...the old monuments and buildings of antiquity...are witnesses of ages long past..." The things those edifices have seen whether wonderous or simply mundane I would like to know. The stories they could tell!
Great episode reflecting the continuity. I totally agree that it was the Roman Empire attempt to wrestle Rome from the Arian Ostrogoths that finished the Ancient Rome as a city community. The very ways of life in the city of Rome continued under Honorius and Valentinian, Majorian and Ricimer, Odoacer and Theodoric the Great, Amalasuintha and Theodahad. Through the devastation of 540s Rome (the City) lost most of its population, institutions and customs apart from those of the Church. And less than a decade after the re-conquest of Italy, Rome (the empire) lost most of it to Langobards. That was the beginning of the end of the Empire in the East. It’s quite remarkable that at the moment a successor state of The-Third-Rome-Wanna-Be is trying to re-conquest its own old capital, having denounced of the new state that emerged around that old capital as a kind of “heretics”. History often repeats its scripts although never in exactly the same way.
Bit harsh calling the Eastern Romans "wannabes," and I would consider the Fourth Crusade the true end of the Eastern Empire IMO but I agree with the gist of your comment. The 3 sacks of Rome in the 400s didn't truly wreck it. Although most of the treasure and artwork was taken, and the city depopulated, the urban fabric and monuments remained virtually intact, and the infrastructure was being regularly repaired and maintained. The Gothic Wars truly sealed the coffin on the ancient city of Rome and began its transition to the medieval one of the Papacy.
@@septimiusseverus343 Oh, no, I did not mean Eastern Romans. I was speaking about today, things that happen “at the moment” but to me they bear a striking resemblance to the 6th century Gothic war. I would refrain, nevertheless, from further discussion on the matter as this channel is about the Roman history. Apologies for confusion.
nations grow, get powerful, become empires by conquering other nations, then after the weight of governance of the vast lands , becomes old and decay ensues , much like human life and the course of how life happens and how we can only see it in our old age
Superb video! I subscribed and I liked it! Excellent! What a shame that some of those temples lasted until the Medieval period and then were deconstructed.
What are you talking about the renaissance was exactly the time it is most described to be yes it was a time when Rome was greater in grandeur than ever before. Sure it wasn’t the number one city in the world but it was a sight to behold.
the number 46000 apartment buildings is suspect. this would mean only 20 persons per apartment building or 4 or 5. The building shown would have housed 60=89 people. It has been conjectured that the number refers to storys or 20 people per story in 5-6 apartments.
And to think, the Pantheon is only a quarter as grand as it used to be when it was built. And most other temples in Rome looked as grand as it does now x4
Wrong, Roman concrete was designed to last for centuries while modern cement is designed to last for few decades so in the future only some plastic items would be left to the future archeologists to know of western Europe existence and even then they will have harder time understanding the lifestyle and cultures of modern western Europe
The field of ruins was left behind by archeologists and thieves. The forum has never been fully developted as may see in this simulation or other 3d presentations. The temples were built one over/after another, and not all at once as some may conclude seing the foundations. Great public buildings were in use all along the Middle Ages, other were scavenged for stone, please check Piranesi sketchings for that purpose. The civil war was the most distructive (cca.800), when nobles fought the catolic church using classic pieces of architecture for defense and even as weapons. Sad, sad story, I know...
@@juliusfucik4011 Somewhat true, but generally they are maintained until replaced. This boarding up and going into disuse is unprecedented. So is the flight of the middle and upper classes And the monument destruction. It is an autosacking!
@@magnuspersson1433 But some die in a 'natural' fullness of years, others prolong their existence, zombie-like, to the unhappiness of all around them, and others die -- or are MURDERED -- prematurely.
@@juliusfucik4011 depends on the building. The Flatiron an Empire State Buildings will stand as long as possible. I live near Boston, and more effort is made to keep older buildings, or at least the exterior of older buildings. They have saved many exteriors and had a high rise built within those exteriors
The city had not grown beyond the walls. The wall cut through inhabited portion leaving 20% of the city outside of it. The same is true on a larger scale after cities which were not walled were from the mid-3rd to the 5th century to protect the civic center. As the urban population contracted the town was reduced to this walled area - instead of 200 acres and 20000 inhabitants it was 20 acres and 2000.
or they used unused pieces and columns to make repairs or build churches. the early churches we see the interiors are mix of different styles of columns and other architectural features. some some this is a new style. No, it's a mess.
For niche players, the platform is only an enabler. An enabler to make more money via links to Roman merchandise, mugs, cups, shirts and perhaps even ancient Roman tours.
Pop. 800,000 for 400 AD goes far beyond the scholarly consensus. Please give the source. The highest estimate I have ever seen even for 300 AD is 600,000. An increase from 60 to 80 thousand from 600 AD to 800 AD is interesting
Like London has been described in early Saxon times, forget the dark and crime and filth, imagine living in Rome ~600ad surrounded by so many crumbling buildings ready to collapse.
The people of Rome in 800AD must’ve felt like walking in the footsteps of giants, and questioned the greatness of what came before them never really understanding it’s true splendour.
Yes, of course. It's the cars and roads behind crack houses, murders, assaults and robberies. Not to mention city officials being arrested for corruption and high tax rates to pay for schools that still fail. You must have been dropped on your head as a child to believe what you wrote.
Yes, once Rome's population was faced with endless snatch and grabs, looting, homelessness, and barbarians freed without bail who'd simply go back out on the street to commit more looting and violence, much of Rome's population left for the suburbs or areas of the empire where this didn't occur and wasn't tolerated. The remaining population in Rome remained in a state of blissful stupidity blaming all their problems either on Julius Caesar supporters or supporters of the old Republic who they called "the Deplorabalus", called anyone who wanted to stop unlimited barbarian invasions into the Empire as racist, and continued to tolerate if not support the Roman rulers who facilitated the rot around them, but then couldn't connect the dots while Rome crumbled. In any case, the remaining inhabitants had little emotional or cultural ties left to their forebears anyway, after years of indoctrination in their schools that taught them Rome was founded in evil, their original rulers were all evil, barbarians were pure and noble, and over time these remaining Romans had abandoned their older religious faith for a new religion that taught men can be women, women men, and their deities changed back and forth at will.
Christianity. Here me out, it's a debunked Gibbonesque theory but think about it, it declined in population pretty much from 350 AD onwards and who was controlling the city from that time. It could have been the most magnificent city in all of Christendom. But it wasn't. Even after Justinian's Italian wars it should have been far more prominent. Maybe Christianity isn't to blame but the Papacy as an institution. Many Pope's did their best for the city, but most didn't.
How did Rome stay at exactly 1 million inhabitants for hundreds of years? Usually the population change should be more dynamic. Even if it grew at 1% per year, it would’ve been several times bigger several hundred years later.
It's an estimate, and population growth back then was not a guarantee, the mortality rate made it so that the empire as a whole barely even grew at all, we know this because of the census' that Rome conducted
Have you driven on the roads in the North of Britain can only do 7 miles an hour on them. All the former works buildings made into flats where are all these people working, Yet we give all the billions in aid to countries that hate us. I know this countries collapsing just like Rome.
but thre roman population did not was exterminted by barbarian Germanics or Gauls or rebeld Etruscians it simply mostly (some deied off disases ) but the rest reemigrated to Eastern Roman Impere or Sicily an Apulia and later came back and intermeriged with the barbarians or gauletruscans an finaly disepeared from chapters off hstory around year 1000-1009.only the latin language emained,
"Ancient super advanced civilizations with ingenious engeneering technology (that still baffle scientists today) that fell and left only primitive humans to restart society never happened bro!!" Meanwhile the Roman Empire:
I wonder than do you realize the importance of proper german buildings over the steel, glass and concrete of today. To my knowlge Dresden is the only city that has been restored since the war.
some people say that the medieval times are undeservingly called dark ages but after watching this video how could anyone say that for its time and at its peak the roman empire was so incredibly advanced, its a tragedy what happened to it
I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated the video. However, I just could not get past the mispronunciation throughout. The narrator is unable to use the “j” sound so he pronounces “Trajan” “Trayon”. Please get a narrator who can properly pronounce the words.
