The Man Who SAVED the Roman Empire - Gallienus The Great and Invincible #35 Roman History

Without Gallienus, Aurelian would have no empire to restore.

Their is something beautiful in tragic heroes that I love. Gallienus, Majorian, Stilico and Aecius fought with all their willpower to mantain a crumbling empire from total colapse.

Ridiculously underappreciated Augustus of Rome. Gallienus had a hell of a career despite suffering just about every setback an Emperor could experience. Thanks for another amazing video SPQRH.

I might be alone in this, but Gallienus is a genuine top 5 Roman Emperor for me. He literally did the best he could to save Rome... When he really didn't need to. Think about what a life he lived and he must have known he was fighting a losing battle, but he still fought. He literally took an arrow and kept going. No one would have blamed him if he had just gone full debauchery and hedonist and left the empire to rot, but he didn't. Tragedy after tragedy he still fought to preserve the empire no matter what. I would even argue that it's because of this tenacity that the crisis would eventually come to an end. He fought the losing battle so that Rome may emerge victorious in the war. Truly one of the greatest Romans... And one of the greatest Men of all time.

This video is long overdue. Roman historians after Gallienus had ulterior motives for blackening his reputation, and later historians took up their opinions uncritically. But, when you look at all of the evidence, the worst thing you can say about him is that he wasn't Aurelian. But who was? Gallienus had every disadvantage but he survived and held together the center. And don't forget he was the main patron for Plotinus, the founder of the philosophical school of Neoplatonism, which is incredibly important to the intellectual world of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages.

He was a super Roman emperor and deserves much more recognition and credit

Gallienus gets an A for effort. He tried his best.

One of the most underrated Roman emperors.

I read historical books about Roman Emperors written not more than twenty years ago. Almost all of them considered Gallienus as a very bad emperor, who sit around and watched everything around him burn. He even insulted Valerian, his own father, for dying pathetically. This also didn't stop there. The Historia Augusta writes Gallienus as "one who lived for nothing but his belly", "effeminate and crossdresser", "Did absolutely nothing but stay in Milan or Rome and be degenerate" (?!?!?), "Diverted all gold he could to construct a second giant Colossus in Rome" (no such colossus was ever found) But the only source for that slander is Historia Augusta, a known historical book that was filled with outright wrong information. It was wrote a century after Gallienus's death by unknown senatorial class in Rome and since Gallienus transfered power to Milan to better answer all shit he had to deal with, they hated him. Now, it's pretty obvious, using all information about the period, that Gallienus was a good Emperor in a very unfortunate times. He was so damn unlucky and was paid for his good service with nothing but his own death and those of his family one by one, traitors, secession and damnation and fake news...

In this era, Rome looking more like a disorganised crime syndicate than an empire.

The testament to ability of Gallienus is that he reigned for 15 years straight, in a time when average Roman emperor reigned for, like, 1-3 years at best. His idea of having a central reserve cavalry force that rapidly rides to cut down enemies all across the empire, was directly improved and adopted wholesale by Diocletian and Constantine in the form of Comitatenses.

This man had horrible luck and circumstances but despite all that he pushed on and gave it his best instead of standing around complaining. It's a lesson for all of us to take in our own lives

Everyone gushes over the rock stars like Aurelian or Majorian, but I'd argue Gallienus was more vital to Rome's survival. Gallienus has to be the most underrated Roman emperor, who ruled during the most dangerous time in the Roman Empire. His is as underrated as Antoninus Pius who ruled during the most peaceful time of the Roman Empire. Neither man is talked about, yet each was absolutely essential for Rome's success. If Gallienus hadn't done what he did, Rome would have certainly dissolved in the 260s AD and become a barbarian state. And on top of that, he did it all while his co-emperor Valerian was literally kidnapped and executed by a foreign king. And if Antoninus Pius hadn't made his decisions he did, then the Pax Romana may have not existed at all.

In my opinion, Gallienus was one of the best roman emperors ever. If he had lived one century earlier, he could be as successful same as Vespasianus or Traianus. Unfortunately, he lived in incredible difficult times. Never before were the Roman empire attacked from so many enemies at the same time and never before took place so many uprisings simultanesly. Despite such disasters, Gallienus tried do the best he could and turned away the collapse of the empire. Later sucesful emperors as Aurelianus or Diocletianus just countinued in work he began.

Ending is just depressing Rest in Peace Top G

A seriously underrated Agustus of Roman history. I've been waiting for this ^^

I bet Gallienus was like "Can I catch a damn break I just came from that region" He was great in my eyes bc he was up and moving his nickname should be the saddle. Another day another barbarian horde and usurper to put down lol

Being an emperor in this period was the worst/most dangerous job in the Empire: going up and down all over the empire all the time, fighting one barbarian incursion after another (plus Persians), while constantly worrying that your own army will rebel or just kill you on spot.

In the mess of the Crisis of the Third Century, Gallienus was the only emperor who's reign can be measured in double digits. Even if you exclude the time he co-reigned with his father, he still reigns longer than any Crisis of the Third Century emperor

Gallienus was arguably a better all around emperor than Aurelian. Aurelian was very much a general (the greatest in the third century even), and ran the empire like his army: no messing around, ruthless, efficient. He was the right man for the mess of the 270s. Gallienus was a skilled commander, a military reformer, adaptible, cultured, and tolerant. In a time of peace, Gallienus would still be one of the best, while Aurelian would resemble an intensely religious version of Septimius Severus.