YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

[Übertroon]

The difference was mostly in the state of Rome at the time, and how weak the west was economically and politically. The relationship between the foederati tribes and the Roman Empire saw shifts over time, especially when Roman power was weak. When it comes to the foederati painting them as a deluge of barbarians that descended on Rome isn’t accurate, as plenty of them already lived inside Roman territory and simply as the empire crumbled, provided what the Roman state couldn’t - stable leadership and protection. The political infighting of the west was at the highest point it had been in centuries and the foederati participated in that power struggle on many sides, for and against tribal leaders and Rome itself. The Romans were suddenly in a position of weakness and consistently failed to adapt to it at the end of the empire, treating the tribes not as equals or worthy allies, but as subject peoples and pawns in the political machinations of the empire. It was the Italian Social Wars all over again, but on a larger scale and with a far less politically stable Rome.

While there were large groups of people moving in and around Roman territory, the lack of political and economic stability changed how the Empire handled the issue and it’s impressive how the western Roman Empire consistently made their situation worse by assassinations of competent generals and refusal to stop killing said competent generals, or ruining treaties and creating even more political instability by killing the current rulership off. It’s hard to negotiate an end to a war you caused when you keep losing every battle, and your leadership is a game of musical chairs. It was the failure of the central state to be able to do anything that killed Rome, not some rampaging horde of barbarians. The barbarians are the symptoms, not the disease. In better times, Rome could and would happily destroy, resettle, or integrate them.

And the Vandals in Africa numbered far less than several hundred thousand, the actual numbers were far closer to 50 to 80 thousand. Archeological evidence also indicates that the Vandals quickly rebuilt almost anything that they destroyed and the scale of destruction was very limited.

So how do you think the Roman Empire got in difficult economic circumstances? Do you think Rome was employing legions and manned forts all along their border because of the fun of it? Having to constantly fight against barbarian incursions was ruinous. Whenever a crisis occurred the forts in the empire would start to be abandoned which just further made the situation worse as barbarians pillaged further into the Empire, and often the Romans would be forced to give land to the invaders. You state that there were already foederati in Rome before they began collapsing, but wouldn't the rapid increase in their numbers be the sign that things weren't going too well? You think it can't be described as a "deluge of barbarians" when suddenly dozens of tribes are simultaneously trying to settle in the Empire?

I'm not saying the infighting and corruption wasn't a factor as well, but you don't think the barbarian invasions and the corruption didn't work as a bad feedback loop? The reason why the barbarians are focused on though is because every big empire faces corruption. But the massive movement of people into and across the empire is something unique to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Perhaps Rome wouldn't have the need for a massive powerful army that regularly deposed the Emperor or rebelled against the Emperor if there wasn't for the constant need to fight against hordes on the border.

 

[Pee Cola]

Do video versions of history podcasts count as part of HistoryTube? If so, The Dollop fits neatly into the Pop History category. As an added bonus Dave Anthony is prime lolcow material; famous for chimping out on (and occasionally rage-quitting) Twitter. He also suffers from a massive case of TDS.

Notwithstanding Dave being a massive sperg, some of the more lighthearted episodes (mainly baseball and really absurd shit like The Truck Nuts War) are hilarious. Mainly because of Gareth Reynolds, though.

 

[Techpriest]

So how do you think the Roman Empire got in difficult economic circumstances? Do you think Rome was employing legions and manned forts all along their border because of the fun of it? Having to constantly fight against barbarian incursions was ruinous. Whenever a crisis occurred the forts in the empire would start to be abandoned which just further made the situation worse as barbarians pillaged further into the Empire, and often the Romans would be forced to give land to the invaders. You state that there were already foederati in Rome before they began collapsing, but wouldn't the rapid increase in their numbers be the sign that things weren't going too well? You think it can't be described as a "deluge of barbarians" when suddenly dozens of tribes are simultaneously trying to settle in the Empire?

I'm not saying the infighting and corruption wasn't a factor as well, but you don't think the barbarian invasions and the corruption didn't work as a bad feedback loop? The reason why the barbarians are focused on though is because every big empire faces corruption. But the massive movement of people into and across the empire is something unique to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Perhaps Rome wouldn't have the need for a massive powerful army that regularly deposed the Emperor or rebelled against the Emperor if there wasn't for the constant need to fight against hordes on the border.

The economic woes in the west were less from the army and more from a shift in weather patterns, bad harvests, a reduced tax base, a smaller population due to plague and famine and thus less taxes on top of all that.

The increase in foederoi went hand in hand with increased reliance on mercenaries within the armies of western Rome as internal conflict after internal conflict combined with a series of plagues and poor harvests limited manpower available. Lots of foederati were hired on the promise of land within the empire, an attractive prospect at pretty much all times. You’re mistaking the symptom (increased number of foederati and the increased strength of the foederati) for the cause (a fractured and fragmented central government prone to infighting.) Rome usually could easily handle multiple tribes looking to move around or seeking resettlement into the empire, even very large ones. The big changes basically come down to the nature of the relationship between the foederati and the central state shifting from one that favored the central Roman state to being far more equal, even favoring the other tribes. I made a comparison to the social wars for a reason.

While the barbarian invasions certainly didn’t help the West, usually they could be managed by the central army or foederati allies like the Franks. The Roman army of late antiquity was also very different than that of the Principate or Republic. Rather than large garrisons situated out on the frontier, you had smaller ones with a more centralized army situated at a strategic point in the interior that could rapidly react to any raid, rebellion, or crisis, though often the forces were used aggressively against border tribes that weren’t towing the line and less on the defense. The border forces were smaller in total, but had more effective fortifications. Why this change? Because the central army was placed where it was to deter potential usurpers and also allow the emperor to quickly deploy his forces to smash any usurpers that might try their luck.

And boy oh boy did they try their luck. The west had a fuckload of civil wars compared to the east (which hilariously enough probably had more barbarian born officers and troops from friendly foederati tribes in their armies than the west), which sometimes would involve foederati fighting one another. While this era saw more tribes at the border, what really kills Western Rome is it’s own internal conflicts that chew up the central armies again and again and again until tribes already inside of Roman territory are without a doubt stronger than the central state. The Visigoths are a good example of this.

 

[Übertroon]

The economic woes in the west were less from the army and more from a shift in weather patterns, bad harvests, a reduced tax base, a smaller population due to plague and famine and thus less taxes on top of all that.

The increase in foederoi went hand in hand with increased reliance on mercenaries within the armies of western Rome as internal conflict after internal conflict combined with a series of plagues and poor harvests limited manpower available. Lots of foederati were hired on the promise of land within the empire, an attractive prospect at pretty much all times. You’re mistaking the symptom (increased number of foederati and the increased strength of the foederati) for the cause (a fractured and fragmented central government prone to infighting.) Rome usually could easily handle multiple tribes looking to move around or seeking resettlement into the empire, even very large ones. The big changes basically come down to the nature of the relationship between the foederati and the central state shifting from one that favored the central Roman state to being far more equal, even favoring the other tribes. I made a comparison to the social wars for a reason.

While the barbarian invasions certainly didn’t help the West, usually they could be managed by the central army or foederati allies like the Franks. The Roman army of late antiquity was also very different than that of the Principate or Republic. Rather than large garrisons situated out on the frontier, you had smaller ones with a more centralized army situated at a strategic point in the interior that could rapidly react to any raid, rebellion, or crisis, though often the forces were used aggressively against border tribes that weren’t towing the line and less on the defense. The border forces were smaller in total, but had more effective fortifications. Why this change? Because the central army was placed where it was to deter potential usurpers and also allow the emperor to quickly deploy his forces to smash any usurpers that might try their luck.

And boy oh boy did they try their luck. The west had a fuckload of civil wars compared to the east (which hilariously enough probably had more barbarian born officers and troops from friendly foederati tribes in their armies than the west), which sometimes would involve foederati fighting one another. While this era saw more tribes at the border, what really kills Western Rome is it’s own internal conflicts that chew up the central armies again and again and again until tribes already inside of Roman territory are without a doubt stronger than the central state. The Visigoths are a good example of this.

Bad harvests and famine is something all empires must contend with, what made the situation precarious for the Romans is they couldn't just disband legions to cut costs. This is why you regularly had Emperors try to cut the salaries for the army or try to debase the currency, which had the legions revolt and just elect a new Emperor.
Because of outside threats they had to find ways to maintain the army size while still compensating for poor harvests.

Also the Romans had plenty of internal divisions throughout their Empire that didn't cause a collapse. They could have, but what set the actual collapse apart from earlier civil wars and famines is the "deluge of barbarians" that revisionists consider trivial.

Do you think the Western Roman Empire would have collapsed in the 5th century if we removed the Germanic hordes? Or perhaps we should acknowledge that what set the 5th century crisis apart from the 3rd and 1st century civil wars was the fact that the borders of the Empire had slowly crumbled, and the foederati were carving their own kingdoms out of the empire.

 

[Techpriest]

Bad harvests and famine is something all empires must contend with, what made the situation precarious for the Romans is they couldn't just disband legions to cut costs. This is why you regularly had Emperors try to cut the salaries for the army or try to debase the currency, which had the legions revolt and just elect a new Emperor.
Because of outside threats they had to find ways to maintain the army size while still compensating for poor harvests.

Also the Romans had plenty of internal divisions throughout their Empire that didn't cause a collapse. They could have, but what set the actual collapse apart from earlier civil wars and famines is the "deluge of barbarians" that revisionists consider trivial.

Do you think the Western Roman Empire would have collapsed in the 5th century if we removed the Germanic hordes? Or perhaps we should acknowledge that what set the 5th century crisis apart from the 3rd and 1st century civil wars was the fact that the borders of the Empire had slowly crumbled, and the foederati were carving their own kingdoms out of the empire.

If not to the barbarians, it would have collapsed from infighting in the fifth century anyway, or been taken over by the East. The Roman army of this era actually increased in size not because of foreign threats but because of internal ones. The lack of political stability was far, far more dangerous than any barbarian incursion could be, even multiple ones. Rome had been fighting barbarian incursions for fucking ever, and the migratory period wasn’t some grand deluge of barbarians suddenly swarming over the borders. They were already inside the borders, and fighting for the Romans and in the Roman armies as the power of the central state collapsed as civil war after civil war ruined Rome. Roman generals that had success against barbarian incursions were assassinated by political rivals or tried to become a new usurper. Strong and relatively unified foederati tribes like the Goths were dragged into these power struggles and disagreements over treaty obligations (which had usually favored Rome when it had the power to enforce these) and naturally made their displeasure with how Rome was treating them known.

The east suffered as much from tribal engagements and the spats with the Sassanids during this era as western Rome, but didn’t fall despite having even more barbarians in the tanks than the west. They faced a much much larger threat yet survived and thrived. Why?

Because they weren’t cutting each other’s throats and lighting themselves on fire at the same time. Western Rome was, and didn’t have the money or population to keep stabbing itself again and again and again and still keep the central state strong. You keep seeing the barbarian incursions as the cause, they’re not the cause of the collapse of the central state, they’re only able to get over the walls because western Rome kept murdering itself again and again.

 

[Slap47]

So how do you think the Roman Empire got in difficult economic circumstances? Do you think Rome was employing legions and manned forts all along their border because of the fun of it? Having to constantly fight against barbarian incursions was ruinous. Whenever a crisis occurred the forts in the empire would start to be abandoned which just further made the situation worse as barbarians pillaged further into the Empire, and often the Romans would be forced to give land to the invaders. You state that there were already foederati in Rome before they began collapsing, but wouldn't the rapid increase in their numbers be the sign that things weren't going too well? You think it can't be described as a "deluge of barbarians" when suddenly dozens of tribes are simultaneously trying to settle in the Empire?

I'm not saying the infighting and corruption wasn't a factor as well, but you don't think the barbarian invasions and the corruption didn't work as a bad feedback loop? The reason why the barbarians are focused on though is because every big empire faces corruption. But the massive movement of people into and across the empire is something unique to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Perhaps Rome wouldn't have the need for a massive powerful army that regularly deposed the Emperor or rebelled against the Emperor if there wasn't for the constant need to fight against hordes on the border.

The vast landed slave estates of the west were very unprofitable and difficult to collect taxes from. Western Rome no longer having slaves and transitioning to serf-life labor did not help.

Blame Germanic people for the fall all you want, but it was also Germanic people filling the ranks of the legions. Regular Roman citizens were amputating themselves to avoid service in the latter years as they got nothing out of service. Its part of why they fell, but not the main reason.

 

[Übertroon]

The vast landed slave estates of the west were very unprofitable and difficult to collect taxes from. Western Rome no longer having slaves and transitioning to serf-life labor did not help.

Blame Germanic people for the fall all you want, but it was also Germanic people filling the ranks of the legions. Regular Roman citizens were amputating themselves to avoid service in the latter years as they got nothing out of service. Its part of why they fell, but not the main reason.

Unprofitable slave estates was something that plagued the Romans for a long time though. Even during the republic era it was clear that the slave economy was regularly providing the Romans with frequent obstacles to overcome.
Roman citizens amputing themselves to avoid the army was also caused by the army simply not being worth it. When the Romans were successful a citizen could be enticed with the promises of land and money, but by the time of the 4th and 5th century this became impossible with the combination of poor management, poor harvests, and the Empire having enough issues trying to simply hold the territory they had and trying to keep the barbarians out of the empire.
And it's not like I'm discounting the numerous factors that played their part, but I'm noticing a strong push towards trying to downplay the role the Germanic hordes had, and how they came to define the century and the centuries to come. If the germanic tribes were a non factor I doubt they would come to shape Europe the way they did.
And it's not like I'm picturing the Germans as ravenous hordes who tore the Empire to pieces, but by the time of the 5th century it was clear that they were numerous enough and such a important part of the existing Roman military that they supplanted the Romans as the dominant people in western Europe.

 

[Techpriest]

Unprofitable slave estates was something that plagued the Romans for a long time though. Even during the republic era it was clear that the slave economy was regularly providing the Romans with frequent obstacles to overcome.
Roman citizens amputing themselves to avoid the army was also caused by the army simply not being worth it. When the Romans were successful a citizen could be enticed with the promises of land and money, but by the time of the 4th and 5th century this became impossible with the combination of poor management, poor harvests, and the Empire having enough issues trying to simply hold the territory they had and trying to keep the barbarians out of the empire.
And it's not like I'm discounting the numerous factors that played their part, but I'm noticing a strong push towards trying to downplay the role the Germanic hordes had, and how they came to define the century and the centuries to come. If the germanic tribes were a non factor I doubt they would come to shape Europe the way they did.
And it's not like I'm picturing the Germans as ravenous hordes who tore the Empire to pieces, but by the time of the 5th century it was clear that they were numerous enough and such a important part of the existing Roman military that they supplanted the Romans as the dominant people in western Europe.

Latin was still the dominant language for the next few centuries in many areas. In most cases it was simply a change in management and a gradual cultural drift away from the Roman standard as the new ruling class implemented some changes and integrated with the local population. And even after the Romans were gone as a political power, the various former foederati often pointed at their history with Rome as a justification for their power. The fall of the west was not a supplanting of

The main problem is that depicting the hordes as rampaging barbarians always antagonistic to Rome is quite different to the actual situation with various tribes both inside and outside of Rome. The depiction of hordes is also somewhat wrong. There’s estimates that put the Vandal army responsible for taking Africa as low as maybe 15k men. Hell, a half Vandal became one of the last hopes for the west to survive (before internal politics killed him). If you think the focus has somehow decreased on the Germanic tribes being responsible for the downfall of the west, you’re correct. A lot of this is a result of archeological work which finds that (surprise surprise) Roman sources greatly exaggerated the extent of the destruction being caused during this period in many areas. Some areas were hit harder than others and the city of Rome had a massive population drop off as people left once the grain shipments stopped, but the once assumed mass slaughters by rampaging barbarians… really don’t show up. The shift in focus of study toward other factors for the collapse isn’t meant to ignore what the Germanic tribes of the migration did, it’s just more of a way to answer the question of did they come in and pick up the pieces, or smash the thing apart. Outside of the chaos that was Britain, the answer seems to be more picking up the pieces then shattering the empire.

Half the point of my bringing up Gibbon was pointing out just how much the scholarship has been revised regarding Late Antiquity over the course of two centuries.

 

[Übertroon]

Latin was still the dominant language for the next few centuries in many areas. In most cases it was simply a change in management and a gradual cultural drift away from the Roman standard as the new ruling class implemented some changes and integrated with the local population. And even after the Romans were gone as a political power, the various former foederati often pointed at their history with Rome as a justification for their power. The fall of the west was not a supplanting of

The main problem is that depicting the hordes as rampaging barbarians always antagonistic to Rome is quite different to the actual situation with various tribes both inside and outside of Rome. The depiction of hordes is also somewhat wrong. There’s estimates that put the Vandal army responsible for taking Africa as low as maybe 15k men. Hell, a half Vandal became one of the last hopes for the west to survive (before internal politics killed him). If you think the focus has somehow decreased on the Germanic tribes being responsible for the downfall of the west, you’re correct. A lot of this is a result of archeological work which finds that (surprise surprise) Roman sources greatly exaggerated the extent of the destruction being caused during this period in many areas. Some areas were hit harder than others and the city of Rome had a massive population drop off as people left once the grain shipments stopped, but the once assumed mass slaughters by rampaging barbarians… really don’t show up. The shift in focus of study toward other factors for the collapse isn’t meant to ignore what the Germanic tribes of the migration did, it’s just more of a way to answer the question of did they come in and pick up the pieces, or smash the thing apart. Outside of the chaos that was Britain, the answer seems to be more picking up the pieces then shattering the empire.

Half the point of my bringing up Gibbon was pointing out just how much the scholarship has been revised regarding Late Antiquity over the course of two centuries.

I think calling it a "change of management" is under selling it. Sure it wasn't Western Rome turning into a heap of ruins, but the Germans didn't just get handed the keys and then called it the day. I think supplanting as the dictionary describes it fits the situation perfectly. The germanic tribes took over control with force, then they became the successor states of western Rome. And it wasn't the Germans just walking in and finding Roman territory empty either. The transition was a violent one.

 

[Tupolev Tu-160]

 

[Seventh Star]

Holy shit I absolutely despise the idea that revisionism is some kind of communist plot to paint white people as always bad and always evil. A lot of historical revision is simply research finding new and different things, or archeological evidence providing new insights, or more detached perspectives on historical events trying to eliminate bias found in earlier historical works.

When people say revisionism they mean the current, based on nothing, "lets make Greeks and Egyptians niggers" shit that people push. Don't be a pedantic sperg lol. No one will say that revising history in the search for factual accuracy is bad.

On another subject, how pozzed is Historia Civilis lately? I haven't kept up with his twitter and I'm afraid he'll become just another reddit drone like Johnny/PotentialHistory. Even if he's quite biased I love his videos for the most part, they're one of the few rewatchable things on YouTube when nothing new is on. (Aka most of the time lately).

 

[Techpriest]

When people say revisionism they mean the current, based on nothing, "lets make Greeks and Egyptians niggers" shit that people push. Don't be a pedantic sperg lol. No one will say that revising history in the search for factual accuracy is bad.

On another subject, how pozzed is Historia Civilis lately? I haven't kept up with his twitter and I'm afraid he'll become just another reddit drone like Johnny/PotentialHistory. Even if he's quite biased I love his videos for the most part, they're one of the few rewatchable things on YouTube when nothing new is on. (Aka most of the time lately).

The Nubians were a factor in Egyptian life for a long time and plenty lived in egypt at one point or another (or even ruled egypt). And holy shit, you’re completely wrong about people revising for actual historical truth being called “bad”. Texas is notorious about this, with attempts to silence or force out historians who correctly state that the war for Texan independence was without a doubt fueled by slave owners not wanting to give up their slaves as slavery was illegal in Mexico at the time. Or pretty much anything about the civil war in the south for generations. Or Rhodesia with anything involving the Great Zimbabwe. Or Communist China with almost the entire warlord period. Or the Japanese with war crimes. Or the Balkans with about almost anything historical ever.

 

[Seventh Star]

The Nubians were a factor in Egyptian life for a long time and plenty lived in egypt at one point or another (or even ruled egypt). And holy shit, you’re completely wrong about people revising for actual historical truth being called “bad”. Texas is notorious about this, with attempts to silence or force out historians who correctly state that the war for Texan independence was without a doubt fueled by slave owners not wanting to give up their slaves as slavery was illegal in Mexico at the time. Or pretty much anything about the civil war in the south for generations. Or Rhodesia with anything involving the Great Zimbabwe. Or Communist China with almost the entire warlord period. Or the Japanese with war crimes. Or the Balkans with about almost anything historical ever.

...I'm not saying that literally. I'm saying that relatively, as in here, as in no one will tell you here that its a bad thing except maybe one or two nutjobs. Damn you are autistic.

 

[Some Badger]

There's a channel called History Matters that I watch from time to time. It's pretty large (~900k subscribers). I don't mind the blocky animation & I like the dry humor, but the videos are 3-4 minutes long so it's possible that important context is often left out.

History Matters seems pretty unbiased compared to the greater historian channel community at large, but his fast and monotonous way of speaking makes content retention a nightmare at times. The shift from ten-minute history videos (hence original name of the channel) to shorter videos about interesting subject matter, like why the fuck Belgium exists.

I get the impression that HM is a bit of a sperg given the repetitive format of his content and I honestly can't fathom what he sounds like off-camera. I don't dislike him though.

 

[Slap47]

I'm sorry that I failed you. Historia Civilis went full on Antifa and deleted all of the stuff. I failed to archive any of it.

Ver archivo adjunto 2283697

https://twitter.com/HistoriaCivilis/status/1404258275844100097

Historia Civilis ⛴ on Twitter: "Torturing a child in public for sport…

archived 10 Jul 2021 23:51:00 UTC

archive.is

Seems he's struggling to hide his powerlevel.

 

[Übertroon]

https://twitter.com/HistoriaCivilis/status/1404258275844100097

https://archive.md/GQf5Q

Ver archivo adjunto 2334402

Seems he's struggling to hide his powerlevel.

The only piggy I see is the fat "kid" with a double chin and man tits

 

[Corpun]

https://twitter.com/HistoriaCivilis/status/1404258275844100097

https://archive.md/GQf5Q

Ver archivo adjunto 2334402

Seems he's struggling to hide his powerlevel.

I don't know if this is really a smoking gun on him being pro-Antifa or anything. The police really might've decided to taze tubby here for vaping. There is probably more to this story however, and I'm willing to suspend my disbelief that tubby was doing provocative shit like blowing his vape smoke into officer's faces.

 

[vulg]

Ver archivo adjunto 2283676

since when was having the highest kill count a bad thing? I thought the ideology with the highest kill count wins????

idk can someone help me? is he just bitter that cummunists can’t kill as much as capitalists?

 

[Slap47]

I don't know if this is really a smoking gun on him being pro-Antifa or anything. The police really might've decided to taze tubby here for vaping. There is probably more to this story however, and I'm willing to suspend my disbelief that tubby was doing provocative shit like blowing his vape smoke into officer's faces.

Yeah, he's hiding his powerlevel now, but it seeps on through.

He even deleted all of his dozens of tweets from between January 01-17 and all tweets relating to Antifa. Not a single archive from January and those from February fail to load. Its a dead end I should probably just drop. Oh well.

Alot of historytube aspires to be like Breadtube so I think stuff like this will happen more often from now on. Civilis seems to want to represent themselves as more of a progressive with their redirection. rather than as some revolutionary Marxist.

Maybe there's a way you could find it through the way back machine.

It was during the capitol riots so I think anybody who would have done that was busy.

https://twitter.com/quitefrankly9/status/1416769891240235010

At least its not a secret 100% lost to time.

 

[Sanshain]

Alot of historytube aspires to be like Breadtube so I think stuff like this will happen more often from now on.

I can personally attest that at least some historytubers absolutely hate Breadtube and want nothing whatsoever to do with them. You just don't hear about it because they know it's dumb to take a political stance on their content, and their viewers are there to get history, not politics.