Check out fantastic Al-Muqaddimah's video here: th-cam.com/video/mSJ5SS--FcQ/w-d-xo.html Historical note: at 02:37 when I mention Constantinople under attack, this is based upon the most up-to-date understanding of the First Arab Siege of Constantinople, which has been redated, based upon more contemporary sources than Theophanes to AD667-669 rather than 674-678. Constantine IV was still in command of the cities defence and was still an emperor but Constans II was operating in Sicily with most of the army when this occurred. i hope to make a video on this very topic in the not too distant future.
I'm currently reading a book called “ the Dictionary of Countries “ the book was written between 1224 and 1228. The story of author Yaqut al-Hamawi is very interesting. He was born Christian in Greece, and his father migrated to Constantinople for economic reasons. During the journey, they were attacked, and his father was killed. Yaqut was only six years old at the time and was taken into slavery. Later, he was sold to a businessman in Baghdad. Luckily for him, the businessman was childless kind man, so he took Yaqut in and treated him as a son and taught him many things about life. The businessman encouraged Yaqut to read more about poetry and literature and also took him on travels to different cities in the Middle East for business purposes. Eventually, Yaqut became a partner at the business and started to travel alone to many cities as the businessman grew older. These travels made Yaqut an expert in geography, culture, and history of the Middle East and Central Asia. He always talked about his travels and experiences. eventually he was freed and became a successful merchant. So Yaqut always talked about his travels and experiences with others. One day, he had a serious disagreement with another man about the name of a city close to Mecca. To resolve the dispute, Yaqut went to the library to search for sources on that city, only to find that no one had written about it. So he decided to write his famous book, the Dictionary of Countries, in which he wrote about every city in the Middle East . In the book, he describes the cities, and why they were name by that name and talk about their buildings, women, literature and many other things as well. Miraculously, the book survived the Mongol invasion and has made it to modern day. Although the book is very long, it's an excellent mix of literature and geography.
Thank you for sharing sounds like a good read I’ll have to go look for it. The part about Yaquts master really shows the difference in slavery in Islam where the treatment was humane and in Yaquts case familial he probably remembered his master as his father for the rest of his life considering his own died when he was so young.
@@mr.cannedble9724 The Alawite sect began in Latakia when it was under Byzantine rule. So there were Muslims but probably what is considered heretical sects
@@terrybogars8933 There was actually a fairly substantial community of Nestorian and Jacobite Christians living under the caliphate. In fact, the patriarch of the Nestorian church had his seat at Baghdad from 775. Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians would have been scarce in the caliphal realm, except perhaps as slaves or passing merchants.
I actually have to amend my previous assertion that free Eastern Orthodox Christians would have been rare under the caliphs, as Syria had a robust Eastern Orthodox tradition well after the Arab conquest of that previously Roman territory in the seventh century.
Nikolaos Mystikos' letter about how there are two lordships on Earth, the Romans and Saracens, and these are the greatest of all lordships, sounds eerily similar to how earlier Romans described their relationship with the Persians, especially the "shine out like the two mighty beacons of the firmament" part. I guess the Caliphate took over Persia as the only other Empire worthy of the utmost respect of the "snobby" Romans.
*9:04* small correction, in the orthodox world patriarchs have no hiararchy or authority over each other. While the patriarch of constantinople is considered the eccumenal patriarch that title is mostly honorary as he doesnt have authority over other other patriarchs or even autocepalus archbishops.
A good point. I was thinking more about the ranking of the Pentarchy. For the Byzantines the five leaders of the church were ranked like so: 1 Rome 2 Constantinople (the Pope claimed that Alexandria was second and Constantinople was third.) 3 Alexandria 4 Antioch 5 Jerusalem So in ranks of authority the Patriarch of Constantinople was seen as more senior than the Patriarch of Antioch and had Thomas won the civil war, he probably would have been crowned again by the patriarch of Constantinople.
The Pact between Umar and Jacob Marcus was fascinating. It seems to confirm the widespread practice of Jews at the time in Europe taking on false conversions, the Maranos and Conversos in Spain and elsewhere. Interesting.
When Emperor Theophilos was mentioned, I hoped that the Andalusian-Roman alliance will be brought up. Not in this video, obviously. But maybe one day. Also, is it just me or the Orthodox Christian Romans during that time seemed to have the better understanding of Islam more than those in Western Europe? Sure, there are some inaccuracies there and there such as misunderstanding the true meaning of the jihad and translating the word "Allah" into Eternal. But at least, the Romans did not come up with ridiculous accusations and ideas like the ones the medieval Catholic Western Europeans came up with during the Crusades like beliving them to worship Prophet Muhammad himself and Apollo?! Where the heck did they get such ridiculous ideas?!
Theophilos appears quite a lot in this video. I have come to realise that he was a really pivotal emperor during the ninth century and look forward to making my biographical video on him where I shall certainly talk about the Byzantine-Umayyad alliance. To answer your question, admittedly it is not one I am an expert on, in the ninth century the Byzantines did have a better understanding since they already had access to the works of Syriac authors like John of Damascus and of course a Greek translation, as well as the lived experience of to deal with Muslims in their daily lives. There was already a mosque in Constantinople, originally for the POWs but later for general use. In this early period many Byzantines saw Islam as a Christian heresy, John of Damascus includes Islam in his book on Heresies. So, although not perfect, the Byzantines had for more time and experience of dealing and understanding Islam. Western Europe had far less contact, except in Spain and southern Europe and was certainly not in the same situation as either the Byzantine Empire or the Caliphate. In fact one might credit the Crusades as well as Latin Europes greater wealth and advances in the High Middle Ages for the beginning of their own translation of the Quran into Latin in 1143 as well as the writing of the Life of Muhammad from the eleventh century twelfth centuries. This lack of contact and then the rather second-hand transmission of knowledge from the East to the west is likely why these misconceptions appeared. Also once the Crusaders conquered their various kingdoms in the Levant, the Latins of Outremer very quickly came to understand Islam and its practices, as far as I am aware.
I am amazed by the fact there were points in history where the Byzantines and the Arabs had a form of détente. Normally, most would thought they would wage war endlessly due to conflict of religion or conquest of the imperial capital of Constantinople.
Islam had been aniconic (antithetical to figural representation) from the beginning, but a fair number of the earlier Umayyad caliphs patronized figural art in their private residences (much of which has survived), and even their early coinage mimicked the representational devices of Eastern Roman and Sassanid prototypes. It was only in the reign of Abd al-Malik (685-705) that a coinage devoid of representational imagery was developed. Thus it was the Eastern Roman emperors of the Isaurian dynasty who seemed to be following Islamic models by instituting the regime of iconoclasm (the suppression and destruction of graven images), beginning with Leo III (reigned 717-741).
Greeks were figthing Arabs for centuries in what is now the borders Turkey and Syria! My grandfathers are from Kapadocia Rum Orthodox and they have this knowledge in their songs they so called Akritika Digenis Akritas
Yes imagine all this fight only for the Arab's and Greeks to get invaded by the turks and become the most backwards people for the next 500 hundred years
He never said that, just that Constantinople was attacked during his reign. This is based upon some modern research with a source by the patriarch who says that he was prevented from sending his synodical letters to the pope from 667-669. Constantine IV was in charge of the defence of the city.
I miss you, Greeks, our historical neighbors😢. I would rather keep fighting you forever than be neighbors with these non-Muslim Turks. Please return to Constantinople. Great love and respect from southern Iraq to Greece, Cyprus and Anatolia, the land of Greece.🇮🇶🇬🇷❤️
I would imagine that the Arabs may have forbidden it so that they can maintain their hegemony over the trading routes between all 3 continents given their advantageous location but dont quote me on that.
There are Christian crosses on the coins of Mu'awiya. So not clear that the "Rashidun" or even the first half of the "Umayyads" were Muslim in their own minds - an alternative view of their ferocity was that they regarded Trinitarians as heretics against Christianity. That is consistent with rock inscriptions consistent with early Islam arising 720ish (the Koranic preservation issue would be a a whole library). Interesting that the commentary neatly also selectively misses what else changed on the Arab coins to provoke the Trinitarian Byzantines because to do so would be inconsistent with the introduction. The problem with treating the Standard Islamic narrative as if it were historical fact is it then undermines what might be more solid accounts of a later period. Perhaps you can examine this when you get into Mu'awiya and his siege as SINhistory.
Something to remember is that for the Umayyads, most of the people they ruled over were not Muslims or Arabs and so many of them will have continued the coin minting practices of the Romans and Persians.
Well said. Abbasid sources are not reliable for understanding the early history of the harakat al-mu'mineen. Hopefully, a more critical history based on epigraphical and archeological records will become more popularized.
@@EasternRomanHistory The ruthless style of scorched earth raiding/pillaging/slaving warfare does imply to me a more nomadic and/or former mercenary content to core forces as they were hardly acting like a bunch of heretic pious Christian monks (I recall the burning, slaving, looting from one of the Egyptian contemporaries). Also the lack of detail about different segments of society (e.g. Christianised Arab Semi nomadic Syrian tribes) is as much a problem with revisionists as it is with followers of the Standard Islamic Narrative. But that does not excuse taking secondary Standard Islamic Narrative sources as fact - for example there is too much agreement on a different story from Chinese and Armenian sources.
@@andrewcole4843 it's true that the core force were Bedouin tribes with a raiding culture (l'ghazwah) not dissimilar to plains Indians, but there is still no archeological evidence of early expansion by mass violence, i.e. layer of ash during disputed conquest. It seems like the early army styled itself as a kind of ethno-nationalist religious movement that met with little if any resistance from fellow semites, and mass conversion came later due to economic/cultural pressures after prohibitions on land ownership were lifted and Arab soldiers began to integrate with their neighbors as wealthy land owners and relatives of Arab elite. How else do you explain the Dome of the Rock inscriptions or discovery of a Qiblah in an ancient church in Jersualem if the locals were simply being enslaved and forcibly converted? Even as late as Yazid I we see good relations among all semites, e.g. he married two Ghasaanid (Arab Christian) princesses, his personal advisor was Sarjun, the father of John of Damascus an important Christian administrator in the Islamic government; his drinking companion was al-Akhtal, a famous Christian poet, at least one inscription honoring Yazid barring a cross, etc. I suspect relations with more powerful groups like Persians, Greeks, Armenians were not so cordial initially.
I must admit I am rather confused here. Are you saying that Leo V 'the Armenian', a man of Armenian and Assyrian descent was actually neither of these things?
Bro One Question.You no 1 speek for Leo3 ask help from Bulgaria ruler Sant Tribelus.Cesar Tervel.How Shame is true real history.Yes Bulgaria help in lad and defend Mighty arab warriors no los in batle 1 century.How no respekt bro ?Yes History for Est Roman Empire but true sige in Constantinopol 717-718.Bulgaria alyes Est Roman Empire and gloruius victory .
It's amazing to me that the Byzantines managed to defeat the abbasids(overall), in my opinion all of western Europe combined couldn't defeat the abbasids in one battle
The Byzantines did not defeat the Abbasids The Abbasids had already collapsed by that time and came under Iranian-Turkish domination The Byzantine victories were against independent Shiite Arab emirates that had nothing to do with the Sunni Abbasids
The Abbasid were soft and heavily focused in understanding everything around them instead of conquering more land! this not the Arab way and i hate it. Umayyad ruled better and made history
Check out fantastic Al-Muqaddimah's video here:
th-cam.com/video/mSJ5SS--FcQ/w-d-xo.html
Historical note: at 02:37 when I mention Constantinople under attack, this is based upon the most up-to-date understanding of the First Arab Siege of Constantinople, which has been redated, based upon more contemporary sources than Theophanes to AD667-669 rather than 674-678. Constantine IV was still in command of the cities defence and was still an emperor but Constans II was operating in Sicily with most of the army when this occurred.
i hope to make a video on this very topic in the not too distant future.
I'm currently reading a book called “ the Dictionary of Countries “ the book was written between 1224 and 1228. The story of author Yaqut al-Hamawi is very interesting. He was born Christian in Greece, and his father migrated to Constantinople for economic reasons. During the journey, they were attacked, and his father was killed. Yaqut was only six years old at the time and was taken into slavery. Later, he was sold to a businessman in Baghdad. Luckily for him, the businessman was childless kind man, so he took Yaqut in and treated him as a son and taught him many things about life. The businessman encouraged Yaqut to read more about poetry and literature and also took him on travels to different cities in the Middle East for business purposes. Eventually, Yaqut became a partner at the business and started to travel alone to many cities as the businessman grew older. These travels made Yaqut an expert in geography, culture, and history of the Middle East and Central Asia. He always talked about his travels and experiences.
eventually he was freed and became a successful merchant.
So Yaqut always talked about his travels and experiences with others. One day, he had a serious disagreement with another man about the name of a city close to Mecca. To resolve the dispute, Yaqut went to the library to search for sources on that city, only to find that no one had written about it. So he decided to write his famous book, the Dictionary of Countries, in which he wrote about every city in the Middle East . In the book, he describes the cities, and why they were name by that name and talk about their buildings, women, literature and many other things as well. Miraculously, the book survived the Mongol invasion and has made it to modern day. Although the book is very long, it's an excellent mix of
literature and geography.
Thank you for sharing sounds like a good read I’ll have to go look for it. The part about Yaquts master really shows the difference in slavery in Islam where the treatment was humane and in Yaquts case familial he probably remembered his master as his father for the rest of his life considering his own died when he was so young.
@@H.M.AugustusHe was from the Romans, and the Arabs viewed the Romans as being one of the sons of Esau, the son of Isaac, and that they were cousins.
@@H.M.AugustusThe Romans are similar to the people of the Middle East because of the Mediterranean climate
Thank you so much, I'l try to get a used copy of this book, maybe on Amazon.
Love it! Let's collab again in the future.
Make one about christians living in the abbasid caliphate and muslims living in the byzantine empire which was rare by the way
@@terrybogars8933 is there any record about that
@@mr.cannedble9724
The Alawite sect began in Latakia when it was under Byzantine rule. So there were Muslims but probably what is considered heretical sects
@@terrybogars8933 There was actually a fairly substantial community of Nestorian and Jacobite Christians living under the caliphate. In fact, the patriarch of the Nestorian church had his seat at Baghdad from 775. Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians would have been scarce in the caliphal realm, except perhaps as slaves or passing merchants.
I actually have to amend my previous assertion that free Eastern Orthodox Christians would have been rare under the caliphs, as Syria had a robust Eastern Orthodox tradition well after the Arab conquest of that previously Roman territory in the seventh century.
Nikolaos Mystikos' letter about how there are two lordships on Earth, the Romans and Saracens, and these are the greatest of all lordships, sounds eerily similar to how earlier Romans described their relationship with the Persians, especially the "shine out like the two mighty beacons of the firmament" part. I guess the Caliphate took over Persia as the only other Empire worthy of the utmost respect of the "snobby" Romans.
Basically, the Saracens replace the Persians in Theophanes king lists.
@@EasternRomanHistorysaracens to Persians. Are like Romans to ancient Greeks
@@EasternRomanHistoryNext the Romans are stupid they say that the Seljuks are from the Persians
@@sanjak689not accurately,
Saracens or Arabs mainly depended on the Mesopotamian and Syrian heritage.
@@sari8438the Abbasids most definitely were heavily persianized.
Oh nice! Al-Muqaddimah is one of my favorite history TH-camrs, so it's awesome to see you guys do a colab!
Thank you.
*9:04* small correction, in the orthodox world patriarchs have no hiararchy or authority over each other. While the patriarch of constantinople is considered the eccumenal patriarch that title is mostly honorary as he doesnt have authority over other other patriarchs or even autocepalus archbishops.
A good point. I was thinking more about the ranking of the Pentarchy. For the Byzantines the five leaders of the church were ranked like so:
1 Rome
2 Constantinople (the Pope claimed that Alexandria was second and Constantinople was third.)
3 Alexandria
4 Antioch
5 Jerusalem
So in ranks of authority the Patriarch of Constantinople was seen as more senior than the Patriarch of Antioch and had Thomas won the civil war, he probably would have been crowned again by the patriarch of Constantinople.
Awesome guys. I watched till the end. Bravo
The Pact between Umar and Jacob Marcus was fascinating. It seems to confirm the widespread practice of Jews at the time in Europe taking on false conversions, the Maranos and Conversos in Spain and elsewhere. Interesting.
Nice colab love ur videos
When Emperor Theophilos was mentioned, I hoped that the Andalusian-Roman alliance will be brought up. Not in this video, obviously. But maybe one day. Also, is it just me or the Orthodox Christian Romans during that time seemed to have the better understanding of Islam more than those in Western Europe? Sure, there are some inaccuracies there and there such as misunderstanding the true meaning of the jihad and translating the word "Allah" into Eternal. But at least, the Romans did not come up with ridiculous accusations and ideas like the ones the medieval Catholic Western Europeans came up with during the Crusades like beliving them to worship Prophet Muhammad himself and Apollo?! Where the heck did they get such ridiculous ideas?!
Theophilos appears quite a lot in this video. I have come to realise that he was a really pivotal emperor during the ninth century and look forward to making my biographical video on him where I shall certainly talk about the Byzantine-Umayyad alliance.
To answer your question, admittedly it is not one I am an expert on, in the ninth century the Byzantines did have a better understanding since they already had access to the works of Syriac authors like John of Damascus and of course a Greek translation, as well as the lived experience of to deal with Muslims in their daily lives. There was already a mosque in Constantinople, originally for the POWs but later for general use. In this early period many Byzantines saw Islam as a Christian heresy, John of Damascus includes Islam in his book on Heresies. So, although not perfect, the Byzantines had for more time and experience of dealing and understanding Islam.
Western Europe had far less contact, except in Spain and southern Europe and was certainly not in the same situation as either the Byzantine Empire or the Caliphate. In fact one might credit the Crusades as well as Latin Europes greater wealth and advances in the High Middle Ages for the beginning of their own translation of the Quran into Latin in 1143 as well as the writing of the Life of Muhammad from the eleventh century twelfth centuries. This lack of contact and then the rather second-hand transmission of knowledge from the East to the west is likely why these misconceptions appeared. Also once the Crusaders conquered their various kingdoms in the Levant, the Latins of Outremer very quickly came to understand Islam and its practices, as far as I am aware.
@@EasternRomanHistory Thanks for the reply! And I will be looking forward for the video about Emperor Theophilos from you!
I am amazed by the fact there were points in history where the Byzantines and the Arabs had a form of détente. Normally, most would thought they would wage war endlessly due to conflict of religion or conquest of the imperial capital of Constantinople.
The Romans: They were paying tribute to the Abbasids because of their stupid civil wars
what you mentioned about both empires adopting iconoclasm at the same time was very interesting to me, i never knew or considered that before
I am glad it was thought provoking.
Islam had been aniconic (antithetical to figural representation) from the beginning, but a fair number of the earlier Umayyad caliphs patronized figural art in their private residences (much of which has survived), and even their early coinage mimicked the representational devices of Eastern Roman and Sassanid prototypes. It was only in the reign of Abd al-Malik (685-705) that a coinage devoid of representational imagery was developed. Thus it was the Eastern Roman emperors of the Isaurian dynasty who seemed to be following Islamic models by instituting the regime of iconoclasm (the suppression and destruction of graven images), beginning with Leo III (reigned 717-741).
interesting topic. I would love a similar video about the relations between the ERE and the khazars
These guys r brilliant. Almuqadama is another great channel
Greeks were figthing Arabs for centuries in what is now the borders Turkey and Syria! My grandfathers are from Kapadocia Rum Orthodox and they have this knowledge in their songs they so called Akritika Digenis Akritas
My brother, the Romans were stupid. They used to say to the Seljuks that they were from the Persians
Yes imagine all this fight only for the Arab's and Greeks to get invaded by the turks and become the most backwards people for the next 500 hundred years
@@عليياسر-ذ5بMy brother, caliphates were stupid.
@@Tzimiskes3506 The person who cannot differentiate between a Persian and a Turk is stupid
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب
The Seljuks ruled a Persianate state. Hence why the East Romans called them Persian.
This is a great video. Thank you.
Excellent video!
Thank you mate, glad you liked it.
We need more material like this that would explain the normal life between the empires without mentioning the wartime .
Excellent video guys. I follow both your channels and it is top notch stuff. Keep it up.
Thank you very much!
why does Al say that Constans II was the one defending Constantinopole and not his son?
He never said that, just that Constantinople was attacked during his reign. This is based upon some modern research with a source by the patriarch who says that he was prevented from sending his synodical letters to the pope from 667-669. Constantine IV was in charge of the defence of the city.
@@EasternRomanHistory cool
What’s the music in the end credits
It is Healing Winds from Soulcalibur II.
Roman history is awesome
Ah, so they are frenemies, then.
0:55 mmm Tervel my beloved
What an awesome video. I love eastern Roman history
I miss you, Greeks, our historical neighbors😢. I would rather keep fighting you forever than be neighbors with these non-Muslim Turks. Please return to Constantinople. Great love and respect from southern Iraq to Greece, Cyprus and Anatolia, the land of Greece.🇮🇶🇬🇷❤️
Why didn't the Romans set trading posts in the Caliphate? Could you please elaborate?
I would imagine that the Arabs may have forbidden it so that they can maintain their hegemony over the trading routes between all 3 continents given their advantageous location but dont quote me on that.
Great
There are Christian crosses on the coins of Mu'awiya. So not clear that the "Rashidun" or even the first half of the "Umayyads" were Muslim in their own minds - an alternative view of their ferocity was that they regarded Trinitarians as heretics against Christianity. That is consistent with rock inscriptions consistent with early Islam arising 720ish (the Koranic preservation issue would be a a whole library). Interesting that the commentary neatly also selectively misses what else changed on the Arab coins to provoke the Trinitarian Byzantines because to do so would be inconsistent with the introduction.
The problem with treating the Standard Islamic narrative as if it were historical fact is it then undermines what might be more solid accounts of a later period. Perhaps you can examine this when you get into Mu'awiya and his siege as SINhistory.
Something to remember is that for the Umayyads, most of the people they ruled over were not Muslims or Arabs and so many of them will have continued the coin minting practices of the Romans and Persians.
@@EasternRomanHistoryCaliph Marwan changed the dinar, and this angered the Roman Emperor
Well said. Abbasid sources are not reliable for understanding the early history of the harakat al-mu'mineen. Hopefully, a more critical history based on epigraphical and archeological records will become more popularized.
@@EasternRomanHistory The ruthless style of scorched earth raiding/pillaging/slaving warfare does imply to me a more nomadic and/or former mercenary content to core forces as they were hardly acting like a bunch of heretic pious Christian monks (I recall the burning, slaving, looting from one of the Egyptian contemporaries). Also the lack of detail about different segments of society (e.g. Christianised Arab Semi nomadic Syrian tribes) is as much a problem with revisionists as it is with followers of the Standard Islamic Narrative. But that does not excuse taking secondary Standard Islamic Narrative sources as fact - for example there is too much agreement on a different story from Chinese and Armenian sources.
@@andrewcole4843 it's true that the core force were Bedouin tribes with a raiding culture (l'ghazwah) not dissimilar to plains Indians, but there is still no archeological evidence of early expansion by mass violence, i.e. layer of ash during disputed conquest. It seems like the early army styled itself as a kind of ethno-nationalist religious movement that met with little if any resistance from fellow semites, and mass conversion came later due to economic/cultural pressures after prohibitions on land ownership were lifted and Arab soldiers began to integrate with their neighbors as wealthy land owners and relatives of Arab elite. How else do you explain the Dome of the Rock inscriptions or discovery of a Qiblah in an ancient church in Jersualem if the locals were simply being enslaved and forcibly converted? Even as late as Yazid I we see good relations among all semites, e.g. he married two Ghasaanid (Arab Christian) princesses, his personal advisor was Sarjun, the father of John of Damascus an important Christian administrator in the Islamic government; his drinking companion was al-Akhtal, a famous Christian poet, at least one inscription honoring Yazid barring a cross, etc. I suspect relations with more powerful groups like Persians, Greeks, Armenians were not so cordial initially.
abbasids holded the title caliph for nearly a millenium 767 years best islamic empire ever the black banner🏴 was the best
Muslim-Roman relations were always quite interesting 👀
You should have been the condescending Turk. Unfortunately, you're a sucker for Byzantium.
You Are Every Where 😂
@yousifboti Caliphal-Roman.
@yousifboti I apologize for calling you akhi. BTW where you from?
Do you think the arabs were successful because of islam or without it?
@yousifboti gotcha
Huzzarh!
Huzzah, indeed!
Showing to represent Armenians a picture of Leo V is like showing to represent Germans a picture of Donald Trump.
I must admit I am rather confused here. Are you saying that Leo V 'the Armenian', a man of Armenian and Assyrian descent was actually neither of these things?
@@EasternRomanHistory Trump has German descent. Treating one as laughable while not the other is hypocritical. Both are.
What is a byzantine?
it's just a name the modern historians have given the eastern roman empire. They were still Romans.
@@roach_is_onlinei personally hate it. Its patronizing.
Bro One Question.You no 1 speek for Leo3 ask help from Bulgaria ruler Sant Tribelus.Cesar Tervel.How Shame is true real history.Yes Bulgaria help in lad and defend Mighty arab warriors no los in batle 1 century.How no respekt bro ?Yes History for Est Roman Empire but true sige in Constantinopol 717-718.Bulgaria alyes Est Roman Empire and gloruius victory .
It's amazing to me that the Byzantines managed to defeat the abbasids(overall), in my opinion all of western Europe combined couldn't defeat the abbasids in one battle
No, the Romans were paying money to the Abbasids 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@عليياسر-ذ5بproof?
The Byzantines did not defeat the Abbasids
The Abbasids had already collapsed by that time and came under Iranian-Turkish domination
The Byzantine victories were against independent Shiite Arab emirates that had nothing to do with the Sunni Abbasids
After watching both. I can say your video is 500x better than Al Muqadimmah’s.
lmao total diss
Hey! I saw that.
Thank you. Gosh, was it really that good?!
@@AlMuqaddimahYT both were good habibi
The Abbasid were soft and heavily focused in understanding everything around them instead of conquering more land! this not the Arab way and i hate it. Umayyad ruled better and made history
Too bad bruh
Least war-hungry Muslim extremist
@@subashiraso all conquerers in earth are muslims ? U seem d7mb 😂😂😂😂😂
@yousifboti WHere you from akhi?
Ummayds were Arab nationalists it was not really an Islamic empire. Non Muslim arabs were treated like second class citizens.