Why did the Roman Empire Collapse
video description
Date: 2025-09-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
knowledgia
It is well known that Flavius Aetius defeated Attila in the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields. Many historians, such as Mary Beard and Ian Hughes (he even wrote a book, Aetius: Attila’s Revenge) believe so. According to most historians in the world, the Romans defeated the Huns and their success is indicated by such obvious facts as:
1) The city of Orleans withstood the siege of the Huns, which is why they were unable to capture it and attack another city, Toulouse.
2) During the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields itself, the Huns suffered great losses, which is why they retreated from Gaul. Thanks to which the spoils from the battlefield went to Flavius Aetius and it became a symbol of his victory over Attila, Prosper of Aquitaine and Gregory of Tours wrote about this.
3) The Huns' attempt to subjugate the inhabitants of Roman Gaul failed, since the Roman vassals Merovech and Chlodebaud became kings of the Salian and Ripuarian Franks.
4) Attila was never able to capture Italy because Aetius took up defensive positions near the Po River, and the Byzantine army, on the orders of Emperor Marcian, attacked the Huns from behind the Danube River in 452. All these events forced the Huns to retreat again, having failed to achieve the goals of their campaign.
5) At the Battle of Nedo in 454, Attila's sons will be defeated by the Ostgoths and Hepites, and the remnants of the Hun tribe will migrate to the Caucasus!
reply
It is well known that Flavius Aetius defeated Attila in the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields. Many historians, such as Mary Beard and Ian Hughes (he even wrote a book, Aetius: Attila’s Revenge) believe so. According to most historians in the world, the Romans defeated the Huns and their success is indicated by such obvious facts as:
1) The city of Orleans withstood the siege of the Huns, which is why they were unable to capture it and attack another city, Toulouse.
2) During the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields itself, the Huns suffered great losses, which is why they retreated from Gaul. Thanks to which the spoils from the battlefield went to Flavius Aetius and it became a symbol of his victory over Attila, Prosper of Aquitaine and Gregory of Tours wrote about this.
3) The Huns' attempt to subjugate the inhabitants of Roman Gaul failed, since the Roman vassals Merovech and Chlodebaud became kings of the Salian and Ripuarian Franks.
4) Attila was never able to capture Italy because Aetius took up defensive positions near the Po River, and the Byzantine army, on the orders of Emperor Marcian, attacked the Huns from behind the Danube River in 452. All these events forced the Huns to retreat again, having failed to achieve the goals of their campaign.
5) At the Battle of Nedo in 454, Attila's sons will be defeated by the Ostgoths and Hepites, and the remnants of the Hun tribe will migrate to the Caucasus!
reply
Roman_Reports
First of all, there was no such thing as Western Roman Empire, as there was no African Roman Empire and so on. There was one Roman empire which went through many administrative reforms, one of which was the Tetrarchy, which appointed one governing Augustus for the Western provinces and one for the Eastern. Both were supported by one Caesar and were completely equal and interchangeable.
When the Roman administrative and military structure in the West collapsed and the Western provinces went into the hands of different barbarian tribes and lords, the Roman state started a reconquest programme, which after a century gave fruits and whole of Italia, most of Africa and parts of Hispania were took back under the Roman administrative and military control. You may notice that the administrative Roman organization from this period is reformed and now the Romans relied on Exarchs in the West, who controlled the Western provinces organized in the Exarchates of Italia and Africa! Is this means that the Romans of the West became Africans as some believe that they became Holy Germans in the Holy Roman Empire
reply
First of all, there was no such thing as Western Roman Empire, as there was no African Roman Empire and so on. There was one Roman empire which went through many administrative reforms, one of which was the Tetrarchy, which appointed one governing Augustus for the Western provinces and one for the Eastern. Both were supported by one Caesar and were completely equal and interchangeable.
When the Roman administrative and military structure in the West collapsed and the Western provinces went into the hands of different barbarian tribes and lords, the Roman state started a reconquest programme, which after a century gave fruits and whole of Italia, most of Africa and parts of Hispania were took back under the Roman administrative and military control. You may notice that the administrative Roman organization from this period is reformed and now the Romans relied on Exarchs in the West, who controlled the Western provinces organized in the Exarchates of Italia and Africa! Is this means that the Romans of the West became Africans as some believe that they became Holy Germans in the Holy Roman Empire
reply
tefky7964
Stilicho, Aetius, Majorian, later even Odoacer or Theodoric the Great, there were many capable people who were trying to save the empire only to be again and again stopped by others, often thanks to greed and envy. Especially last two are often ignored, because they are barbarians, but I recommend reading about them, their efforts to restore the empire, preserve its institutions, technologies, power and all other aspects are very fascinating and in surprisingly many aspects they succeded. Sadly events that happened shortly after the end of the Western empire are usually ignored.
reply
Stilicho, Aetius, Majorian, later even Odoacer or Theodoric the Great, there were many capable people who were trying to save the empire only to be again and again stopped by others, often thanks to greed and envy. Especially last two are often ignored, because they are barbarians, but I recommend reading about them, their efforts to restore the empire, preserve its institutions, technologies, power and all other aspects are very fascinating and in surprisingly many aspects they succeded. Sadly events that happened shortly after the end of the Western empire are usually ignored.
reply
ycplum7062
Rome use to defeat an aversary and make them Roman. After a while, becoming Roman was harder. Rome no longer became stronger by making former adversaries Roman. They stayed adversaries. Many raiding barbarians would have loved to have been Roman citizens.
Another issue is finances. It is said currency lubricates trade. Rome was running short of currency. There wasn't enough precious metals to mint enough coin to lubricate the huge economy of the Roman Empire.
reply
Rome use to defeat an aversary and make them Roman. After a while, becoming Roman was harder. Rome no longer became stronger by making former adversaries Roman. They stayed adversaries. Many raiding barbarians would have loved to have been Roman citizens.
Another issue is finances. It is said currency lubricates trade. Rome was running short of currency. There wasn't enough precious metals to mint enough coin to lubricate the huge economy of the Roman Empire.
reply
sidjoo-k8q
Empire's capital was not Rome but Constantinople for centuries by time described, since Constantine moved seat of emperor, all Roman regalia, Senate and magistrates there (except Pontifex Maximus, who become bishop of Rome or Pope) - to the city called then Nova Roma. And emperors of West was not kind of independent dynasty but rulers set from Constantinople. And there was no Byzantine - this term invented only after Medieval times.
reply
Empire's capital was not Rome but Constantinople for centuries by time described, since Constantine moved seat of emperor, all Roman regalia, Senate and magistrates there (except Pontifex Maximus, who become bishop of Rome or Pope) - to the city called then Nova Roma. And emperors of West was not kind of independent dynasty but rulers set from Constantinople. And there was no Byzantine - this term invented only after Medieval times.
reply
TheZenGarden_
The Roman empire just side-stepped from the political sphere to the arena of religion;
Inter Caetera aka the American Experiment Ordo Ab Chao = Novus Ordo Seclorum.
And yet all roads still lead back to Rome.
2 Esdras 6
9 For Esau (Dan. 2: 39-44) is the end of the world, and Ya'aqov (Deut. 28: 15-69) is the beginning of it that followeth. Gen. 15: 12-14
reply
The Roman empire just side-stepped from the political sphere to the arena of religion;
Inter Caetera aka the American Experiment Ordo Ab Chao = Novus Ordo Seclorum.
And yet all roads still lead back to Rome.
2 Esdras 6
9 For Esau (Dan. 2: 39-44) is the end of the world, and Ya'aqov (Deut. 28: 15-69) is the beginning of it that followeth. Gen. 15: 12-14
reply
CarloHistory23
The permanent division of the empire between the Eastern and Western imperial court in 395 AD doomed the West.
Most of the treasury, manpower, resources, trade and culture were concentrated in the East.
The New Rome was also in the East.
The division meant that the West, already disorganized, needed to defend a longer land border compared to the East.
reply
The permanent division of the empire between the Eastern and Western imperial court in 395 AD doomed the West.
Most of the treasury, manpower, resources, trade and culture were concentrated in the East.
The New Rome was also in the East.
The division meant that the West, already disorganized, needed to defend a longer land border compared to the East.
reply
Vladi. G
This was prophesied long before it happened through both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. And the prophecy remains as no new empire rose after Rome though many tried. We are still in the time of divided Rome (the iron and clay feet) and soon the rock will hit the feet and establish the everlasting kingdom of God.
reply
This was prophesied long before it happened through both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. And the prophecy remains as no new empire rose after Rome though many tried. We are still in the time of divided Rome (the iron and clay feet) and soon the rock will hit the feet and establish the everlasting kingdom of God.
reply
gorgiegorgie1172
The image that was purported to be the sack of Rome by the Vandals actually depicted the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The Romans were finally feeling the horror they had meted out to so many as they built their evil empire that we still so love and fetishize today.
reply
The image that was purported to be the sack of Rome by the Vandals actually depicted the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The Romans were finally feeling the horror they had meted out to so many as they built their evil empire that we still so love and fetishize today.
reply
lordMartiya
Need to point out why the Vandals were ACTUALLY such a problem: Africa had a disproportionate wealth, and by occupying it the Vandals kept the enormous revenue that Rome could have used to raise native troops rather than relying on unreliable barbarian mercenaries and foederati.
reply
Need to point out why the Vandals were ACTUALLY such a problem: Africa had a disproportionate wealth, and by occupying it the Vandals kept the enormous revenue that Rome could have used to raise native troops rather than relying on unreliable barbarian mercenaries and foederati.
reply
knowledgia
While Rome's hostility to Turks dated back to late antiquity particularly against Tengrist Oghuric entities like the Bulgars, Avars, Huns, the arrival of Seljuks marked the begin of a new front against a distinct Muslim powerhouse conquering their way into Anatolia
reply
While Rome's hostility to Turks dated back to late antiquity particularly against Tengrist Oghuric entities like the Bulgars, Avars, Huns, the arrival of Seljuks marked the begin of a new front against a distinct Muslim powerhouse conquering their way into Anatolia
reply
knowledgia
Everyone wanted more than their fair share; instead of sharing a common ground or goal, this is why empires collapse and are still collapsing today. Bottom line, Humans a Greedy, full of hate, and just a Putrid piece of Flesh
reply
Everyone wanted more than their fair share; instead of sharing a common ground or goal, this is why empires collapse and are still collapsing today. Bottom line, Humans a Greedy, full of hate, and just a Putrid piece of Flesh
reply
TheConsulofRome
The barbarian nomadic tribes were all jealous of Rome, that's why they destroyed everything.
They had no class, never in they're wildest dreams could the invaders bring order and beauty like the Romans did.
reply
The barbarian nomadic tribes were all jealous of Rome, that's why they destroyed everything.
They had no class, never in they're wildest dreams could the invaders bring order and beauty like the Romans did.
reply
wklis
The Dark Ages started with the fall of the Western Roman Empire. While the Eastern Roman Empire entered a depression, it did not suffer its own Dark Ages like the west until the east fall from the Ottoman Turks.
reply
The Dark Ages started with the fall of the Western Roman Empire. While the Eastern Roman Empire entered a depression, it did not suffer its own Dark Ages like the west until the east fall from the Ottoman Turks.
reply
AltaicX
There's a common pattern between Alparslan and Attila both inflicted heavy defeats against the Romans in Manzikert and Ravenna respectively and died just the year after at the height of their power
reply
There's a common pattern between Alparslan and Attila both inflicted heavy defeats against the Romans in Manzikert and Ravenna respectively and died just the year after at the height of their power
reply
kaiser-of-history
I’ve already seen multiple videos on this topic but every single time I watch a new video I always learned way more!
Though, Romes fall was not quite as tragic as Constantinople.
reply
I’ve already seen multiple videos on this topic but every single time I watch a new video I always learned way more!
Though, Romes fall was not quite as tragic as Constantinople.
reply
kriskris998
It’s only one explanation. In 375 the Huns crossed the Don river and pushed the Ostrogoths. And because the Europeans never faced any enemy like this, This became domino reaction.
reply
It’s only one explanation. In 375 the Huns crossed the Don river and pushed the Ostrogoths. And because the Europeans never faced any enemy like this, This became domino reaction.
reply
Peizxcv
What’s interesting is the Roman army didn’t reform to better deal with barbarians especially the horse riders whereas the Chinese continued to evolve to keep up with new barbarians
reply
What’s interesting is the Roman army didn’t reform to better deal with barbarians especially the horse riders whereas the Chinese continued to evolve to keep up with new barbarians
reply
RaduMihai-l6m
11: 24 NO whole scale masacre.
Dude THE POPULATION OF ROME WENT FROM 1 MILION TO 200 THOUSAND PREHAPS SOME SAY THAT it WAS AS FEW AS 20000 THAT REMAINED, after just 10 days!
reply
11: 24 NO whole scale masacre.
Dude THE POPULATION OF ROME WENT FROM 1 MILION TO 200 THOUSAND PREHAPS SOME SAY THAT it WAS AS FEW AS 20000 THAT REMAINED, after just 10 days!
reply
kevinshannon955
The Vandals are one of the most interesting peoples of this period to me. A Germanic tribe that wound up establishing a Kingdom in North Africa and would later sack Rome.
reply
The Vandals are one of the most interesting peoples of this period to me. A Germanic tribe that wound up establishing a Kingdom in North Africa and would later sack Rome.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
12:21
