Western historians are ideologically more fond of Rome, and less fond the Eastern Roman Empire. Opposite to the Russians, who are indeed ideologically more fond of the Eastern Roman Empire, which despite its “rebrand” during the renaissance, is the more successful of Roman empires.
Not really about the rise of Islam. It was about the emerging war within the Islamic world and how the Ottoman Turks using superior military technology overran the rest of the Islamic world. This started in the very early 14th century in the wake of the chaos left by the various Mongol invasions in the 13th century.
@@colinhunt4057The Ottoman Turks were primarily motivated by Islam. So yes, the Ottomans are ideologically a part of Islam. Culturally, yes they could both afford and build better weapons, within their Islamic empire. “They [the Muslims] will then fight and a third of the army would run away, whom Allah will never forgive. A third which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah’s eye, would be killed, and the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople.” [Sahih Muslim]
@@colinhunt4057definitely about the rise of Islam. The Ottomans were primarily, ideologically motivated by Islam to conquer Rome. It is true that within the Islamic Ottoman Empire, the Turks were more technologically advanced than previous Islamic empires. “The (Allah's Messenger) said: You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to conquer it. Then you would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack the Dajjal and Allah will enable you to conquer him.” (Sahih Muslim 2900)
I think it was about force projection and the needs of the time. Constantine fought back and forth over that area, and I think they understood at that time an east/west divide was permanent - but if the east wanted to exert serious pressure on the west, they needed a base more forward than Antioch or alexandria...it's just like the perfect geographic location to exert influence over a huge area of important territory, is insanely defensible with access to a port/trade hub location. If the Augusti had left that region and left to Africa, it would have been abandoning it to the "barbarians" and such. There needed to be an augusti on the scene pretty much.
the "flowery language" of the Ottoman sources is a literary register one must learn HOW to read. It's certainly not easy to do but deserves more than a dismissive chortle.
Didn’t the city government have flame they used on the ships. Why is it they didn’t use flame or at least the ingredients of flame in there moot or shoot it from the walls, they had centuries to figure it out.
You are referring to the substance known as Greek fire. The problem with it is very short range. It was expelled at a target by a syringe or pump. This was very short range, a few dozen yards at most. The Ottoman Turks were smashing the walls of Constantinople with the largest and heaviest battery of artillery the world had ever seen to besiege any city thus far. This included the largest cannon ever built at the time, a monster some 50 feet long and taking several hours to load and throwing a stone shot weighing perhaps a ton. Against Ottoman artillery, the Roman defences were hopelessly outdated. And Greek Fire having no useful range was of no use. By the time of the siege in 1453 the city had perhaps as few as 10,000 remaining inhabitants. This had only a rather small garrison of 5,000-7,000 and was far too small to resist the some 100,000 besieging troops including elite Janissaries that the Ottoman ruler had brought. The chance of holding out against the Ottomans was zero. They had superior miltary technology, vastly superior numbers, and a greatly superior supply system capable of building new artillery guns only a few miles from the siege. The possibility of relief was zero. The Ottomans had a large fleet completely blockading the city and preventing any relief from Venice or Genoa even if those cities had been inclined to intervene. They had their own problems resisting and failing against the Ottoman onslaught elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Ultimately the Ottoman Empire could only be stopped at the great siege of Malta in 1563 more than a century later. The Ottoman naval power remained supreme in the Mediterranean until defeated at Lepanto in 1571, over a century after the fall of Constantinople.
@@PAPITO_49 Most welcome. The huge war from the early 1400s to Lepanto in 1571 might be considered the world's first true intercontinental war. It included Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, the remnants of the East Roman Empire, the remnants of the Crusader states in Palestine, Rhodes and Malta, Venice, Genoa all in an uneasy alliance (called the Holy League) against the Ottoman Empire. For allies the Ottoman Empire also had the occasional alliance of France. The only European country which had no part in it was England. So the Siege of Constantinople was one very serious episode in what was a very long, utterly exhausting war. I speculate that, because England had no role in it, it is not much known by English speaking countries as part of their historical past.
That was the assault which doomed the Roman Empire to defeat in 1453. The Empire never recovered from the disaster of 1204 and the treachery of the Crusaders.
Here is the prophecy of Muhammad ﷺ, alluded to by Crowley, if anyone is interested in reading. Allah, for the record, means "The [One] God". "...[Allah's Messenger] said: You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to conquer it. Then you would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it..." (Sahih Muslim 2900)
![มองหน้ากันไม่ติด (Awkward) - โอ๊ต ปราโมทย์ FEAT. MAIYARAP [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4b02SY_r6Gw/mqdefault.jpg)
Aways love to hear about Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire!
That was fantastic, I would love to see more conversations with Mr. Crowley
Love these larger interviews. Thanks!
This is just in time for the train to Gare du Nord.
Did you know: Modern historians call the Western Empire “Rome” but call the Eastern Empire “Rome Footnotes.” 🤔
Ok Mr gibbons, remember you need to take your copium daily alright?
Western historians are ideologically more fond of Rome, and less fond the Eastern Roman Empire. Opposite to the Russians, who are indeed ideologically more fond of the Eastern Roman Empire, which despite its “rebrand” during the renaissance, is the more successful of Roman empires.
Wow, I read his book back in 2016. What a treat! Thanks!
You two could talk forever I think. Thank you guys
Mr Crowley looks like he was an eye-witness to those events. I believe him!
an excellent addition to the mentioned references is The Fall of Constantinople 1453
Steven Runciman.
I lived in Istanbul and the highlight was walking the ruins of the Theodosian Walls
So cool. Would love to visit one day.
Thank you for the interview
great interview! thx!
Fascinating stream. Lots I didn't know.
Excellent interview
thank you this was fascinating to listen to
Loved this episode, would be nice to hear more from Mr Crowley
OHHHHHH sweet gonna download this and listen to it at work tomorrow. HELL yeah. just made monday that much better.
Would love to see a podcast episode about how the rise of Islam toppled the Sassanids and challenged the eastern Romans.
Not really about the rise of Islam. It was about the emerging war within the Islamic world and how the Ottoman Turks using superior military technology overran the rest of the Islamic world. This started in the very early 14th century in the wake of the chaos left by the various Mongol invasions in the 13th century.
@@colinhunt4057The Ottoman Turks were primarily motivated by Islam. So yes, the Ottomans are ideologically a part of Islam. Culturally, yes they could both afford and build better weapons, within their Islamic empire.
“They [the Muslims] will then fight and a third of the army would run away, whom Allah will never forgive. A third which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah’s eye, would be killed, and the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople.” [Sahih Muslim]
@@colinhunt4057definitely about the rise of Islam. The Ottomans were primarily, ideologically motivated by Islam to conquer Rome. It is true that within the Islamic Ottoman Empire, the Turks were more technologically advanced than previous Islamic empires.
“The (Allah's Messenger) said: You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to conquer it. Then you would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack the Dajjal and Allah will enable you to conquer him.” (Sahih Muslim 2900)
Great episode
Excellent choice to have him
Fascinating.
These iviews are great, thanks!
They could turn this into a movie. It is actually a great story
there are movies on this subject made by turks check out 1453 its quite mediocre but its what we got
Would be fun to have a closer look at that library you got there
These two guys sure think about the Roman Empire pretty often.
Wow, great video, had they had more people it would have been possible to defend it
Have you guys read Mika Waltaris The Dark Angel?
The gentle infidel is a cool book about this.
I never understood why Alexandria wasn't chosen over Byzantium as the new capital.
I think it was about force projection and the needs of the time. Constantine fought back and forth over that area, and I think they understood at that time an east/west divide was permanent - but if the east wanted to exert serious pressure on the west, they needed a base more forward than Antioch or alexandria...it's just like the perfect geographic location to exert influence over a huge area of important territory, is insanely defensible with access to a port/trade hub location. If the Augusti had left that region and left to Africa, it would have been abandoning it to the "barbarians" and such. There needed to be an augusti on the scene pretty much.
the "flowery language" of the Ottoman sources is a literary register one must learn HOW to read. It's certainly not easy to do but deserves more than a dismissive chortle.
I agree. Which is why I called much of this episode “copium”. Eloquent reflections by men who conquered Constantinople.
Didn’t the city government have flame they used on the ships. Why is it they didn’t use flame or at least the ingredients of flame in there moot or shoot it from the walls, they had centuries to figure it out.
You are referring to the substance known as Greek fire. The problem with it is very short range. It was expelled at a target by a syringe or pump. This was very short range, a few dozen yards at most. The Ottoman Turks were smashing the walls of Constantinople with the largest and heaviest battery of artillery the world had ever seen to besiege any city thus far. This included the largest cannon ever built at the time, a monster some 50 feet long and taking several hours to load and throwing a stone shot weighing perhaps a ton. Against Ottoman artillery, the Roman defences were hopelessly outdated. And Greek Fire having no useful range was of no use. By the time of the siege in 1453 the city had perhaps as few as 10,000 remaining inhabitants. This had only a rather small garrison of 5,000-7,000 and was far too small to resist the some 100,000 besieging troops including elite Janissaries that the Ottoman ruler had brought.
The chance of holding out against the Ottomans was zero. They had superior miltary technology, vastly superior numbers, and a greatly superior supply system capable of building new artillery guns only a few miles from the siege. The possibility of relief was zero. The Ottomans had a large fleet completely blockading the city and preventing any relief from Venice or Genoa even if those cities had been inclined to intervene. They had their own problems resisting and failing against the Ottoman onslaught elsewhere in the Mediterranean.
Ultimately the Ottoman Empire could only be stopped at the great siege of Malta in 1563 more than a century later. The Ottoman naval power remained supreme in the Mediterranean until defeated at Lepanto in 1571, over a century after the fall of Constantinople.
@@colinhunt4057 thanks
@@PAPITO_49 Most welcome. The huge war from the early 1400s to Lepanto in 1571 might be considered the world's first true intercontinental war. It included Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, the remnants of the East Roman Empire, the remnants of the Crusader states in Palestine, Rhodes and Malta, Venice, Genoa all in an uneasy alliance (called the Holy League) against the Ottoman Empire. For allies the Ottoman Empire also had the occasional alliance of France. The only European country which had no part in it was England.
So the Siege of Constantinople was one very serious episode in what was a very long, utterly exhausting war. I speculate that, because England had no role in it, it is not much known by English speaking countries as part of their historical past.
I love Roger he looks like he has first hand knowledge of the siege and fall of Constantinople
The 4th Crusade (my favorite) got through.
That was the assault which doomed the Roman Empire to defeat in 1453. The Empire never recovered from the disaster of 1204 and the treachery of the Crusaders.
Here is the prophecy of Muhammad ﷺ, alluded to by Crowley, if anyone is interested in reading. Allah, for the record, means "The [One] God".
"...[Allah's Messenger] said: You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to conquer it. Then you would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it..." (Sahih Muslim 2900)
bro looks like he was there
Hate how Brits say "Constantine", otherwise good video
May 29, AD 1453; the darkest day in the history of Western Civilization.
I would argue that September 1, 1939 is, but it's up there
@@zevegas201 That was just a logical outcome of the calamity of the First World War. Which was itself an outcome of the French Revolution.
The True Fall of Rome.