You learn something new every day; what did you learn today? Submit interesting and specific facts about something that you just found out here.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
Too long, didn't click: he was on campaign against the Persians with the last emperor (Julian the Apostate) who died in a battle, and he spent his whole time marching back. Then he was found dead one morning, possibly from murder, possibly from toxic fumes.
Not so much him not wanting to visit the city as much as him being really far away.
That march back is the most hilariously humiliating defeat ever. Julian, in his infinite wisdom burnt all their boats. The persians burnt their crops and flooded their lands. The romans were starving, suffering pestilence, and being picked off by persian raids. Jovian signed a terrible treaty just to make it back to roman territory and barely even managed doing that. Worst starting point for any emperor ever!
atleast he got the army out even for the humiliating treaty. The emperor after jovian, valentinan also majorly stabilized the west for the last time, before things started going really bad
When people wonder what happened to the might of Rome, Julian's humiliating "invasion" of Iran was no small contributor.
I’m not sure it cracks the top 10 of contributing factors, if I’m honest. Yes it was stupid to move into the Persian heartland when he could have just sieged Ctesiphon and extracted concessions that way, but all they really lost was Nisbis and its surroundings. It had been lost and regained before - this just happened to be the last time Rome lost it (because they built a replacement city instead of trying to retake it again).
Not only did they lose Nisbis, but they lost a lot of men and expertise. By itself, that doesn't matter much, sure. But then Adrianople happened soon after and then the Battle of the Frigidus a generation later. Each time, it was harder to reconstitute and rebuild. This was in a context, post Crisis, where the Romans were already pushing themselves to the max to maintain a real army.
By the end of the 4th century, the Western Roman Army went from a major force to a paper tiger in just about 50 years. It's true, we don't have an exact narrative explaining what happened, but it seems like pissing away men power and expertise throughout the latter 4th century is at least part of thr story.
they did manage to recover from that campaign (one of the last times I think) and during the late 360s and to the mid 370s the empire was doing quite a good bit better with valentinan and valens at the lead. In general I think valens gets too much shit for Adrianopel, the ones that caused the situation to escalate were local officials while valens was in the east fighting the Persians. He also marched to battle on wrong Intel.
Because all the roads lead to Rome he got trapped in an infinite loop.
Spent all his time in Istanbul
Was once Constantinople
That’s none of my business
I guess he liked it better that way.
So take me back to Constantinople
Not Constantinople?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0XlO39kCQ-8
Why did people want that job anyway? It had like the worst life expectancy of any job ever.
Why did people want to be the leader of the biggest and most powerful state ever? No, I can’t imagine why either…
Not everyone cares about life expectancy; power, glory and fame are very attractive to most normal people.
I dunno, if a genie said "I'll make you a billionaire, but you'll be dead within a year", would you take that deal?
Nobody would because that's a finite timeline. The thing is with people who are vain enough to pursue those things. Are usually the kind of people to believe that they are free from consequences or that the outcome will be better or different for them because obviously they are a better person. So they pursue and end up getting the title thinking they've one their game, and since they are so cunning to get where they were, obviously they won't die. And they get so caught in their own hubris that they don't even attempt at really protecting themselves.
Shit id take the billion
If Sulla could do it, why can't I?
Honestly, a fair number of them were in as good of a position as they'd be in when they'd usurp, others had to (think Caesar after Gaul), and others had absolutely no choice in the matter and were proclaimed by their troops!
(And some of them were killed immediately after when they changed their mind)
It's probably like those people who start an affair with a married person, and then expect the said married person to be faithful to them once they get together. Of course the obvious would never happen to them, because they're just that special.
It really depends on the era. For example, after Theodosius takes over for Valens, no Eastern Roman emperor is successfully overthrown (or killed in battle or assassinated) until Phocas killed Maurice in the early 7th century. (Edit: For context, Jovian is succeeded by Valentinian. Valens is Valentinian's brother. Valentinian took the West, and he gave Valens the East.)
This is a good point, and it is worth pointing out that this was part of the design by Diocletian and Constantine I. Diocletian realized that the Emperor needed to be the leader of, and close to, the Danube legions as they were the largest group of legions Rome had. As long as they did not revolt, the Emperor was safe, because the Danube legions could beat any other army Rome had. The exception that you note, Phocas’ revolt against Maurice, was indeed the Danube legions revolting. Constantine reinforced this idea by building the new capital close to the Danube and making it the home base for the Danube legions, letting him always be close to them.
As a side note: the revolt against Maurice was because he had ordered the legions to patrol the Danube in the winter instead of letting them rest in their barracks in Constantinople. Maurice was worried about the Avars making inroads. After Phocas rebellion and slaughter of anyone related to Maurice, women and children included, Rome was drawn into a war with Persia while also in the middle of a civil war. This lead directly to the Arab invasions, Rome losing Syria and Egypt, and eventually Constantinople being put under siege - by the Avars. Maurice was entirely correct to order the legions out.
Phocas really represented the end of an era. By the end of the 7th century, they were getting new emperors every few years.
the 20 year anarchy was a fun time
Yes, because the Romans lost such a large part of their armed forces that they no longer had three large army groups with one being the largest. They changed to many themes, each defending a part of the country, and there wasn’t a single one that could defeat the rest of them together.
After Julian led them into the desert, surrounded by and being picked off by persian raids, and then conveniently died no one did want it.
One single job vacancy so plenty of suckers that will fight for it
Well it is quite a long way from Jupiter.
The expression is "set foot", it's never "stepped". JFC, develop some English literacy (this is coming from someone who speaks English as a second language, so you have zero excuses)
Do you not know that sentences end in a full stop?
No, oh great one. Typing on my phone when being at work and multitasking made me into a subhuman worm. GTFOOH, hypocrite
Do you need a ladder to get off your high horse or can you get off by yourself?
Nah, your mum helps me get off, every time
Sounds like you're making excuses.
You know, helping people with their language use is one thing, but all you seem to want to do is establish your supposed superiority. I don't think people would react to your comment the way they did if your attitude were friendly instead of confrontational.