The Battle For Europe After The Fall Of Ancient Rome

YouTube ^ | May 4, 2022 | Odyssey - Ancient History Documentaries

[OneVike]

Interesting.

Lat night I was looking to check it out, but it was late. So I decided to bookmark it to watch at a later time.

Now I can see what reviews it has by checking out the comments.

This way I can see if it will be worth my time

lately, I have little precious time to waste on bad videos.

[SunkenCiv]

Reccopolis, in central Iberia, is the only archaeologically identified town founded by Germanic newcomers on Roman soil during the challenging socio-political and environmental circumstances of the mid to late sixth century AD. Despite archaeological investigations, doubts have persisted concerning the nature and size of Reccopolis. Recent geomagnetic survey by the Romano-Germanic Commission of the German Archaeological Institute, however, has revealed a dense urban fabric, unexpected new royal palace buildings, an extramural suburb and one of the potentially earliest Islamic mosques in Iberia. Reccopolis now stands as an exceptional example of early medieval urbanism that challenges our perceptions of urban development in sixth-century Europe. Learn more about Reccopolis and the geomagnetic explorations in this film by Jaime Sanjuan.

Geomagnetic Explorations in Reccopolis - Extended Version
January 18, 2021 | Deutsches Archäologisches Institut

• Reccopolis, the Versailles of Spain’s deserted interior | Vicente G. Olaya | August 30, 2019
• The Visigoths' Imperial Ambitions | Jason Urbanus | March/April 2021 | page by page
• Reccopolis revealed: the first geomagnetic mapping of the early medieval Visigothic royal town
  Cambridge University Press | 12 June 2019
  Joachim Henning, Michael McCormick, Lauro Olmo Enciso, Knut Rassmann, and Eyub Fikrit Eyub

[SunkenCiv]

Our republic is quite different than an Islamic Republic such as Iran, because Iran is a dictatorship, which, like the Pyongyang dictatorship, or the Venezuelan republic, merely calls itself a republic.

[OneVike]

The Roman empire never ceased to exist . . . it just changed address.

Which was never so obvious as in the era when the Holy Roman Empire reigned supreme..

The only difference was now they eventually only controlled the barbarians states instead of the whole Mediterranean ones.

Oh, while the Eastern Empire sill controlled the remainder of the Mediterranean, as they watched their grip slowly crumble away. Until the mid 15th century when the Islamic Caliphate struck their final blow on Constantinople.

[SunkenCiv]

By and large, YouTube reviews are the only real waste of time on YouTube.

[Verginius Rufus]

Our word "republic" comes from the Latin respublica, literally "the public thing." The term "republic" is properly used of the period of Roman history between the expulsion of Tarquin the Proud and Augustus' creation of the Principate (a monarchy in fact). Augustus pretended he had restored the republic but Suetonius in his biography says that he only thought about doing so. But respublica could also be rendered as "state" and to specify the free republic (before it was destroyed in the civil wars) respublica libera could be used.

It was dominated by the wealthy so by Greek standards it was more of an oligarchy. But Polybius in the 2nd century B.C. has a hard time pigeonholing the Roman system and calls it a mixed constitution because it was a combination of oligarchical, democratic, and monarchical elements. The people voted for the magistrates (who became members of the Senate) but the voting in the Centuriate Assembly (comprising 193 "centuries") was heavily weighted in favor of the wealthiest citizens, so the election was usually decided before the poorer citizens got to vote. (Once a candidate had a majority of the possible 193 votes, the voting stopped, just like how the World Series ends once one team has won 4 games).

Certainly it was true that during the Republic a small number of noble families dominated the consulship--it was rare for a "new man" with no consular ancestors to be elected.

[OneVike]

I agree, I was referring to reviews here.

After reading a few here, I do believe I will give it a try.

Thanks for post though, I trust me fellow FReepers over an comments at YouTube. Although I do sometimes leave my reviews there. Just to give the place some balance.

Nothing like a 1 or 2/10,000 scale to give some different perspective. LOL

[SunkenCiv]

Exactly, what elections there were became more open to the hoi-polloi *after* the so-called republic (which was run by an unelected oligarchy) was dumped, and there was an Emperor.

Ironically, Rome became an empire when it started conquering other cities, starting with Ostia, but probably wouldn't have swallowed the Med basin and western and Balkan Europe had it not been for the attacks *on* Rome by the Gauls and then the Carthaginians. They had to improve their military skills or perish.

[aquila48]

That’s my point. The definition of a republic (res publica) is an entity that tends to public affairs.

There are different ways of doing that.

The way we’re doing it is more and more through a huge, unelected, administrative state - the “swamp”. Right?

[Savage Beast]

Tell me what he says. I speak German. I'll translate it for you.

For example, if he says something that sounds like "Ischlibbydisch," it means "I love you;" something that sounds like "Maschtnischts" means "It doesn't make any difference."

That sort of thing.

[SunkenCiv]

:^)

[SunkenCiv]

The way the Roman 'republic' was doing it was an unelected administrative state, so by your way of thinking, there was no real break between not having an emperor and having one.

[aquila48]

From Wikioedia...

“With MODERN republicanism, it has become the opposing form of government to a monarchy and therefore a modern republic has no monarch as head of state.”

So the differentiation between a republic and a monarchy is of recent origin (comparatively speaking).

Back in Roman time what they called a republic was definitely not what we think of a republic today. There was no voting by the public in general.

In fact even in the US, right after independence only land-owning white males could vote.

Just think how many times the voting rules have changed just within the short history of the US. And they continue to change - not for the better I might add.

But wait, there is more. Early roman emperors were elected.

“The legitimacy of an emperor’s rule depended on his control of the army and recognition by the Senate; an emperor would normally be proclaimed by his troops, or invested with imperial titles by the Senate, or both.”

[SunkenCiv]

In ancient republics the form varied. Athenian citizens (so, no slaves, no women) who showed up could vote, similarly to the colonial American villages (and in my home town, right up into the 1960s), with someone to preside over the meetings (whatever they had before Robert's Rules of Order) and sgt-at-arms equivalent to toss the unruly, drunks, etc.

It definitely works, but not indefinitely. The Athenians, for all practical purposes, voted themselves right out of power with their idiotic adventure in Syracuse, Sicily.

Early Roman emperors wound up following the consular form, where two consuls ruled jointly, with veto power over each other's decrees -- but the one year limit became null and void, and the consular partner was typically someone else in the ruling family. Also, the Senate approval was generally purchased, or arose as a matter of self-preservation. Senators had to worry as much about rival senators as they did about the emperor.

When Nero was struck by the Senate, he was taken by surprise (being pathologically self-centered, and having rid himself of everyone in his life who would have backed him in any way).

Nero was succeeded by the last of the old-line families' military leader, who didn't count on getting hacked to pieces by troops upset about not getting a big raise. His successor was rigged into power by his own eventual successor, who was then disposed of by Vespasian, founder of the short Flavian dynasty. Besides being a great general, he was politically nimble, which one would have to have been to survive the volatile Nero.

[OneVike]

Why would you ever want to use Wikipedia as a reference to anything.

Wikipedia was Woke before it was even cool for liberalism.

Wikipedia is useless, since they remove anything that does not support the powers of the left.

Wikipedia = historic revisionism

It’s like using using Snopes.com to prove a point.

Worthless, and until conservatives stop using them, we will not win I. We need to shed the light of truth, not spread their lies which only sheds darkness.

[aquila48]

What sources do you use? And what do they say about what I commented on? How does it differ from what I quoted fron Wikipedia?

I find Wikipedia to be reasonably good for historical things and things that don’t involve current politics.

And by the way, there are no sources that are strictly neutral, because every human has his bias. I’m just as skeptical of sources on our side as those on the other side. And am always on the lookout for things that don’t pass the smell test.