Pre-Christianity, maybe.Anyway you could get Prima Nocta to be actually thing ? I'm curious how long it would take before the peasants rebel.
Middle Ages, your basically handing your enemies an excuse to call a crusade.
Pre-Christianity, maybe.Anyway you could get Prima Nocta to be actually thing ? I'm curious how long it would take before the peasants rebel.
Was wondering if this could be its own thread, only to find @redjirachi tried to start one a couple years back.Didn’t Phillip the Arab try to offer his resignation during a crisis in the last months of his reign, only for the Senate, led by one member in particular, to object so strenuously that he took heart and offered said senator command of legions to fix said issue? Only for said senator to be hailed Imperator by the troops he was given; then, despite attempts at a diplomatic resolution, he ends up defeating and killing Phillip in battle; and that’s how we got Emperor Decius? Do I have this right?
nah fam it was an agricultural paradise, it just so happened to be completely outcompeted by even better agricultural paradises like egypt, syria, anatolia or for the brief period it was held, mesopotamia. but like as soon as the western romans faded away, the franks in gaul found themselves in a super cool position as they had become the new grain silo of western europeWas Gaul one of the poorest regions of the empire?
No way. Ferdinand II’s niece Joanna of Naples is a far likelier matchIf Miguel de Paz had lived would Maria of Aragon still marry Manuel I of Portugal?
What were some reasons for the successful Germanic conquests of the Roman Empire, besides Rome's ineptitude?
Potato potatoI am assuming in that the Germanic conquests here are a reference to the migrations.
How should've the 5th century emperors dealt with the ever expanding power of the foederati? Should they have eliminated some foederati and coerce the rest into submission? Should they have integrated some of them?As you see the weakening of imperial authority locally is countered by the usage of foederati and the warlords to reimpose it, but as a consequence it's these individuals and the foederati that start having the connections to the local power brokers. Further weakening of imperial authority via Emperors unable to enforce their will on the system, meant a further need of foederati whose leaders are now themselves warlords who then use their positions in the imperial court to legitimize their power, with new foederati agreements granting them more and better lands to settle while gaining offices that legitimize their assumption of imperial authority in those regions, an affair that tended to be done in cooperation with the local Roman aristocracy tho ofc there were cases of conflict between the two.
I thought Christianity's role in Rome was a blessing for the emperor since it gave him much more authority.I admit I failed to address on the religious and economic reasons
Thank you for writing this bit on the foederati's role and its relationship to Romebut if I go by then we are going to be here all day and this post will get even bigger, so calling it at this point, tho hopefully explanation comes across that it was a considerable amount of factors that prevailed in the Germanic tribes assuming authority in western parts of the Roman Empire, and that it wasn't really ineptitude on the Romans part, but that Romans and Germanics had a vested interest in the weakening of Imperial authority to increase their own local power. In many ways, it's a simple decline of central authority that has to concede power in order to address local problems and threats, tho in this case it also involved originally outsiders to integrate themselves into the process and taking advantage of it.
How should've the 5th century emperors dealt with the ever expanding power of the foederati? Should they have eliminated some foederati and coerce the rest into submission? Should they have integrated some of them?
I thought Christianity's role in Rome was a blessing for the emperor since it gave him much more authority.
Well, the Italians did it, and it was a House of Savoy name going back a couple of centuries IIRC. Therefore, someone needs to give Savoy a crown, which is not without the bounds of possibilityWas there ever a time in Medieval English history that someone named Victor could have been King?
In England? I did ask about English history.Well, the Italians did it, and it was a House of Savoy name going back a couple of centuries IIRC. Therefore, someone needs to give Savoy a crown, which is not without the bounds of possibility
I think it's probably unlikely, as Victor just wasn't a common name. According to this site, it appears a couple of times in the Curia Regis Rolls in 1200 and 1203, followed by a few records from the 16th century. I have no way of verifying that, but the site does seem to have good sources for its other data, so it's probably correct. Apparently it wasn't even a particularly popular name in nearby parts of Europe either. So there would need to be a good reason for someone royal to have the name - maybe a king wins a battle and his son is born the same day so he is named for the victory, or something like that - but remember that most people back then only had one name, so there'd have to be a good reason for the king not to use more traditional names, imo.Was there ever a time in Medieval English history that someone named Victor could have been King?
Oh I missed that bitIn England? I did ask about English history.