Decius - A new Trajan? Roman Emperor #31 Roman History Documentary Series
2024 ж. 15 Мам.
20 494 Рет қаралды
On this channel we focus on Roman History and right now we're doing a video on every Roman Emperor, if you're interested in that subscribe or watch the playlist here:
bit.ly/32CUA2g
Narration by: James O'Neil
Intro: 0:00
Ascension: 0:36
The Gothic War: 4:40
Final Thoughts: 7:35
Music:
Legionnaire
Our State - Imperator Rome OST
Gladiator Arena - Max Anson
Oceanus - Imperator Rome OST
#Emperorsofrome #Romanemperors #SPQR #Romanhistory
cant wait for Gallienus, without him the empire would have been ripped apart way sooner, a real tragedy and a precursor to the more tragic emperor deaths like Aurelian and Probus, man this series is going to be lit
Yeah Im working on that video right now, it's set to be a 40 min video - Gallienus the great and invincible
@@TheSPQRHistorian can't wait bro
The man, who unlike Valentinian I, was too angry to die.
@@TheSPQRHistorian He had raged 15 years against the dying light before he was killed by his generals and praetorian guards...
@@TheSPQRHistorian so keen, love ur vids keep up the good work xx
I live in the village of Dryanovets, where the Battle of Abritus happened! He and his son died about 300 metres from my house!
Dryan...Trajan
Dryan is actually a Bulgarian name for a certain type of tree, curiously enough.@@e55v86
Decius having the title of "Trajan" always made me wonder why Trajan's name never became a new Imperial title.
Not to mention Trajan was a very good emperor and the senate even called him the best emperor
Because it would be one too many you already have Imperator Caesar Augustus not to mention other titles emperors added to their names
@@HeliodromusScorpio Fair point. The roman naming system just always confuses me
Because Augustus was a name bestowed by the senate, whereas Optimus Princeps was the title bestowed by the senate on Trajan. He was born Marcus Ulpius Traianus.
you know what's hilarious? To this very day in Dacia aka "Romania" the name Trajan remains popular amongst the male population. Talk about the winners writing the history!
Philip : "I want to resign" Decius : "don't!" Philip : "why?" Decius : "trust me, bro"
Why didnt philip just resign when Decius marched? Isnt that what he wanted to do in the first place?
@@KumarAnshsYeah, Philip probably felt betrayed and acted foolish
@@KumarAnshs If men were taking up arms against him, he probably felt it wasn't safe to now resign. If Decius took the empire, he would need to legitimize himself by handling disgruntled supporters of the previous emperor. Quickest way would be to severely humiliate or eliminate Philip. Nor would it be in Rome's interest, that it would be a possibility that whenever an usurper rises, the current emperor would meekly give up. It would encourage future usurpers.
@@BernasLL ok but if Philip wanted to resign why would he care about future usurpers. Leave that to Decius. Plus If Philip just handed Decius the empire in exchange for luxury livings as a former emperor should have, Decius would be forced to agree otherwise his men would get pissed at him for sending them to war for no reason
Oh the irony. Trajan is one of the few pagan emperors Christians like because he didn't go out of his way to persecute christians while Decius is one of the most hated emperors by christians cause he did the opposite.
"Decius persecuted the Christians, thinking they were a curse! Killed by Kniva's Goths at Abritus, things are only getting worse!"
There's actually an episode of the History Channel's docu-series "Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire" about Decius, which shows his whole reign, from the assassination of Philip to his death while fighting the Goths. It was pretty satisfactory, actually
I have to check that out
I'm sure he meant well and was driven by melancholy for a past of greatness that was over. Him and Julian truly proving by their failures that greatness is achieved by embracing the present and driving it to a desired future rather than trying to make it revert into the past, no matter how glorious that past was.
Decius was defeated militarily, and Julian was killed in battle while actually winning a battle against the Persians; Julian's failure wasn't due to poor governorship but due to circumstance. He also may have been assassinated by a christian within his army, as there were many fanatical Christians in the 4th century. Decius was a poor military commander, however. In neither case is there anything fundamentally wrong with an appreciation of Roman tradition that had worked well for centuries.
At least Julian won important battles in Ga which delayed the Germanic invasions until later. Decius barely did anything of note apart from ensuring instability.
Thats deep.
Decius was a capable emperor doing the best of his ability. He could have done much good. Sadly he was killed in the battle of Abritus in mid 251 CE. He was the first Roman emperor to be killed in military action. He was possibly the highest ranking military death ever as emperor is higher in hierarchy then king.
I got a really nice coin of Decius, since then, I've been quite interested in learning about the man.
His memorial coins of old emperors were a really fascinating idea.
Sadly it won't be the last Roman emperor who will die in the fields of battle.
True, its also a fact that the imperial position became more and more a military despot that served more on the frontier then they had done in previous centuries...so naturally they would die more often as a reault
Valerian, Julian and Valens come to mind.
This was a great video, btw. Don't worry about people in the comments getting butthurt over events in the distant past that didn't directly affect them, be they supporters of Christianity or paganism. Keep doing what you do, you are one of the very best, SPQR historian.
Had Decius succeed in stabilizing the empire and passing the Empire to his son, the future might've been very different. But, given the state of affairs, I'm afraid that Decius was doomed from the start.
The situation was terrible, and it wasn't entirely his fault.
With Rome's long history it is kind of surprising that it wasn't until Decius for an emperor to die in battle with a foreign enemy
Ehem..ehem.. Gordian 3
No state has a legitimate power to punish those who refuse to cooperate with what it thinks "is best". Not then, not now. As we can see then, and now, that power would inevitably be abused when the state is actually wrong.
Thanks for a wonderful video! ⚔
Once again I enjoy your work. Thank you
Worth the wait every time
Saw this series pop up in my feed and loved it. Can't wait for the hour long episode on Quintillus.
Im glad you like the series, but I have to disapoint you as Quintillus will only be covered as a footnote in the Claudius video. 😉
I love this channel ❤
Good video! As a person who spend effort about making history animations I know your effort too. Keep it up!
I have few of his coins… quite inexpensive and about 47% silver.. The silver double denarii coins shine up but turn gray quickly.
Decius was the first emperor to try, but failed. It wasn't all his fault actually, because Decius was in unfortunate situations. I can respect that the fact he tried and become a better version of Julian.
He proved to be a traditionalist just like many other Emperors before and after him. Instead of moving forward or trying something newhe was looking backwards...
I'd say Julian was the better version, he was a philosopher emperor as well and his campaign in Persia was initially successful, and only failed because of his battlefield death. Decius made a critical tactical blunder.
@@Transilvanian90 Julian, through his unnecessary war, also lost all the territory gained by Diocletian and Galerius, and unlike Decius, did not even have an heir to succeed him. Julian's attempts at a pagan restoration also caused much discord, and embarrassed even the pagans. That balances it out, I'd say.
@@septimiusseverus343 I strongly doubt it embarrassed the Pagans, remember that virtually all your sources have passed through the Christian censor. Which, in a greater sense, invites caution when judging non-Christian emperors like Decius and Julian too harshly.
@@Transilvanian90 According to Ammianus Marcellinus, "Perhaps it was better that he died, had he come back from the east there would soon have been a scarcity of cattle." I'm going with Marcellinus on this one. And he was a pagan.
Decius was another Julian, but a much strong-willed, brave, had a great vision, and competent one (despite his military failings).
The Goths, the biggest headache of the Roman Empire
Along with the Huns and, later (Byzantine Period) the Avars, Persians and, finally, the worst headache of all, the Caliphates / Turks.
The Goths quieted down for about 100 years after Gallienus defeated their failed migration in 267
The biggest headache to romans were other romans
@@TheSPQRHistorian It was either Gallienus and Claudius II.
2:50 this discrepancy between the potential locations of the battle jumped out at me so much i had to look into it myself. I don't even think this is even a debate or a disagreement between sources because, aside from a coin collecting article on Philip, none of the papers or other results even mentioned the other location as a possibility. Something else somewhat suspicious is the fact that Beroea is spelled as Veroea in some sources (the modern city is Veria) and i find it EXTREMELY convenient that the 2 potential locations for the battle, VeroNa and VeroEa are literally one letter different (in English spelling at least). The 3rd century records are already scattered and fragmentary, and how many times have the originals been copied or damaged? What is the possibility of a scribe mistaking ONE smudged letter, or thinking the previous copy had made a mistake, and changing one letter that moved the location of the battle by hundreds of kilometers in one direction or the other? Personally, i don't think the Macedonia location makes any sense at all. Philip would have been in Rome with miniscule military power at hand compared to Decius and the Danube legions, not to mention the fact that they would almost certainly be mobilizing by the time Philip even realized that he would need to scrape together an army. Even if Decius was marching at a leisurely pace, by the time Philip threw together some kind of army and tried to March to Macedonia they probably would have ran straight into each other on the road. Also, if Philip was counting on some of the other legions to reinforce him, why would he March to Macedonia RIGHT NEXT TO THE DANUBE LEGION POWER BASE. Philip knew his army was inferior and knew his only real chance was to hold a defensive position where he might be able to halt Decius long enough for other legions to back him while he defended Italy to preserve his legitimacy. The battle taking place in Macedonia, almost 3x the distance from Rome as Verona, just doesn't make sense on so many levels to the point i think a one letter typo is VASTLY more likely than Philip marching straight into Danube legion territory with an inferior army just to get his teeth knocked in. Even if Philip took his whole ragtag army to Macedonia by boat it still doesn't make sense because then Decius would have a straight shot to Rome itself without a single army to stop him, so why would he turn around and fight Philip first? And why would Philip think he had a better chance using his ragtag army in hostile territory than he would in closer, friendlier, and more defensible territory (IE Verona in Northern Italia).
Why is this out of order in the playlist? #30 comes AFTER #34
Great video. Persecution is different from prosecution. :)
@6:33 Sic semper tradentibus, O Prisce...
hey I know that first track from ERH videos
Decius: "I shall be known as the new Trajan" Christians and Goths: "Unfortunely for you, History will not see it that way..."
I love how this narrator went like: "The Christians rejoiced at his death, but you gotta understand the context of why Decius had to kill those Christians mmkay? Don't judge Decius will ya? His killing of Christians is done out of good intentions is all" XD What about the persecuted Jews? Were their deaths and persecution by Decius justified as well? Next time I'll use that excuse when it comes to Queen Bloody Mary when she persecuted the Protestants for not advocating to the Catholic faith.
Trajen! I know that name from somewhere, 00:08 - 00:16 oh oww
Will the Gallic and Palmyrene leaders be covered too?
I think I will make a video each one, one for the Palmyrene Empire and one for the Gallic Empire, covering their entire history
After the Aurelian video
Where is the video on Philip the Arab?
I think Decius was probably "Motivated" by the Legions to proclaim himself Emperor.
Dude the pictures all disappeared this is like some kinda podcast
The reasons for the persecution of Christians under the Romans has often been massively misunderstood. It was not because of religious intolerance on the part of Rome - quite the opposite, the Romans were highly tolerant of any kind of religion they came up against (unless human sacrifice was concerned) - the Christians were persecuted because they refused to sacrifice and swear an oath to the safety and welfare of the Roman empire.
Trying to hang on to Greco Roman paganism. Not quite it's last hoorah.
A few more decades
Julian the Great; literally, Decius "reincarnated"...
*VII...*
length of each video getting shorter in the 3rd century :)
That’s how a real Roman Emperor should leave this mortal plane.
Not “Trebonius,” but “Trebonian” or “Trebonianus”
BIBULUS AWARD ???
Despite Decius was a strong-willed emperor, he wasn't Trajan. However, the reincarnation of GAIVS IVILVS CAESAR will be ascended to the throne after his father's usurpation against the neutral Aemilianus...
That agent of Satan was better as a feast for wolves than he was as a man.
lmao, Decius is hardly an agent of satan, could have been a very capable emperor if not for his sudden death
*Decius sends a group of innocent people to their death based on their religious belief. Narator: "we have to look at the context and perspective of the Romans before we judge Decius to severly"... no. no we don't. Change Decius with a certain austrian painter, christinas to jews and romans to german. Now say the same thing: we have to look at the context and German perspective before we bla bla bla.
Yes we do and let's not start moralising about the past, It's a very slippery slope. Because remember it was Christianity that exterminated all pagan worship and not the other way around
@@TheSPQRHistorian Christianity was persecuted for 400 years and only grew because it grew in the masses instead of paganism which needed the state to support it. Christianity didn’t destroy anything it was just better than any form of religion that came before and after it. Cristians stopped gladiatorial games, forced couples to stay together which gave woman more support, established the notion that slaves were also human and we also had through our entire history discussions and debates about violence. Paganism had no reservations about slaves and violence because they didn’t actually believe in anything. They only believe that there was a spiritual dimension but of no morals or ethics. The only thing I am hearing is an anticristian bias. The pagans tried all they could to eradicate us and we died gladly meanwhile they fell apart the moment they got pushback
@@TheSPQRHistorian nice attempt at a dodge, except your wording is loaded. Christianity replaced paganism, extermination means something else. Also, you invite your audience to a moral judgement with your own words. Don’t be upset when they do so but with their own heads, not yours. And my head says that morality isn’t subjective based on the passing of time. If you claim that it is, than perhaps you can explain when and how morality changes its inherent values… at what point between Decius and the small moustache man did it become inexcusable to kill a group of people for their religious beliefs and why was it excusable before?
I'm neither anti nor pro, I try to be as fair as possible. It's easy to sit here 2000 years later and moralize with the benefit of hindsight. But let's not kid ourselves with "Christianity didn’t destroy anything" - considering the number of Pagan temples destroyed. Nor did 'Pagans' try all they could to eradicate Christianity, they begrudgingly tolerated it for the most part, just like the Jews. Just like many polytheistic religions, Greco-Roman Paganism was inclusive towards other beliefs - which certainly can't be said about Christianity. I do agree with you that it had a stronger religious basis than the many Pagan cults, they were so different; Greco-Roman Paganism was more utilitarian and Christianity was a true belief system.
@@fabianmiron2782 Christianity was MUCH more intolerant of Paganism than the other way around. Initially Pagans tolerated Judaism and Christianity, until those groups became de facto seditious by their refusal to accept the Emperors. Once Christianity began having the upper hand in the 4th century, it began increasingly intolerant and violent bouts of repression and intellectual destruction that culminated in the burning of the library of Alexandria, the murder of intellectuals such as Hypathia, and the elimination of the Academy of Athens and other sources of education. The Roman Empire permitted any religions to exist as long as they didn't come into conflict with the State (which Christianity did), whereas the officially Christian Empire displayed no tolerance towards Paganism.
Based