The Komnenoi (Alexius, John and Manuel) were great emperors but they did 2 terrible mistakes: they let the byzantine navy fall apart and they gave too many rights to Venice.
I don't think this is quite correct. Alexios and John both tried to restore the fleet, whilst John and Manuel both tried to reverse the rights given to the Venetians, where Manuel seized basically everything they owned in Constantinople. When Venice retaliated, there was a naval battle in which the Byzantines were victorious in the 1170s. This shows that they at least had some reasonable capability still. Things really went wrong after Manuel
A major reason why the empire was in such dire straits after Manzikert was because it faced foreign pressure on three fronts. In addition to the Turks in Anatolia, there were the Pechenegs along the Danube and the Normans invading the Balkans. In the absence of the Normans, Alexios could have focused more on Anatolia earlier. Instead he had to concede Anatolia in order to fight the Normans, who were more of an existential threat. Alexios ended up being a miracle worker and who knows what he could have achieved under more favorable circumstances.
The crucifiction of a Christian empire (by Christians) Starring: (in alphabetical order) Alexius III as 'The opposite of Constantine XI' Alexius IV as 'The useful idiot' Boniface I as 'The opportunist' Costantinople as 'The victim' Crusaders as 'The pirates' Doge Enrico Dandolo as 'Th' octogenarian chief, Byzantium's conquering foe'* Philip of Swabia as 'The matchmaker' Pope: Innocent III as 'Himself' * referenced by the late Lord Byron in his poem Childe Harold's Pilgrimage
@@argentianguis6510 The Byzantines payed the price of decades of plots, backstabing, coups and dynastic infighting. Besides their foreign policy was terrible.
@@EasternRomanHistory speaking of decline, have you read John Glubb's "The Fate Of Empires", which goes over symptoms of decline in any empire/ nation state?
Well it's always easier to judge looking back. I feel the same, as the empire brought this on itself. Ambition can blind or hinder long term foresight. Seems a lot of these problems the East faced could have been avoided. If their leaders would have looked at past events, just in their own empire. That's just my thought. This video was exceptional great. Also I'm glad to hear you working with Justin on Fire of Learning. He does excellent videos of history.
Thank you very much Steven, it was a pleasure working with Justin and am happy with our results. I agree that it is always easier looking back and certainly decisions that were made at the time in hinsight werenot always the right ones. I consider Alexios, John and Manuel as exceptional emperors. None of them were to know that the fourth crusade was to happen. Certain things can certainly had their roots in their reigns but under a different set of circumstances they may not have been as much of a problem. I would consider it wrong to say that the crusade was the fault of anyone beyond those immediately involved ultimately. If you liked these, then check out the other videos I made about this era.
@@EasternRomanHistory I believe I already have. One of the reasons I really enjoy your videos. Is because you really do a good job of covering the dark times in depth. A lot of others I watch while good, seem to mostly focus on the high points. Like under Justinian, and Basil 2. I think highly of the Komnenos because the really held the Empire together through some terrible times. Yet they seemed to lack the foresight of the lack of strong center leadership. It's too bad, the Eastern empire was a very interesting civilization. I wonder what the world wound be like if they were still around. Any way keep up the great videos. Looking forward to the next.
Why is it that on my end, the title of these videos in the side playlist preview is the playlist of world war I videos I've watched earlier? IN any case what a gem! Thank you so much sir!
Fantastic ,profound and detailled analysis of the intricated multifarious and complicated causes of the decline of the East Roman Imperium ! An example for future historians !
I search up "Sack of Constantinople 1204" I find hundreds of videos. I search up "Massacre of Latins 1182" I find barely anything. Definitely some historical cherry picking going on. Thank you for representing both sides fairly.
I certainly agree that 1204 was something far more harmful than beneficial in every way for the Christendom, but today's Orthodox seems to completely ignore the context of it. I once saw a Greek guy remarking that he would never forgive the Catholics for the sack of Constantinople, and well, then I wouldn't forgive them for what was done in 1182 either.
@@TorquemadaBouillon Yep. And that's without saying that the two events are not even comparable. Ultimately the sack of Constantinople was just a bunch of greedy bastards organising a plunder party because they felt cheated that they hadn't been paid. While the material loss was extreme, the same cannot be said about the human toll which was exceptionally low for such an event (about 3000 civilians, most of which died in the various accidental and intentional fires that resulted from the general unrest). This is far from the unrestrained, premeditated and organised violence that took place during the Massacre of the Latin, where tens of thousands were raped, tortured and killed in cold blood regardless of age, sex and condition, with the few remaining survivors being sold to the Turks as slaves... all because they had had the audacity of setting up a successful business.
@@remilenoir1271 Both the sack of Constantinople and the massacre of Latins (which was mostly caused by the silly economic treaties with venice and others which put the ERE in an unequal position) were disastrous. One would've also thought that the Latins would have had enough when sacking Thessalonica in 1185 and themselves committing massacre, rape and desecration of the Churches in various ways. Both side committed bad things. No doubt
Congratulations on your video! I didn't know there was a channel dedicated on the Eastern Roman Empire (nowadays commonly known as Byzantium). Keep up the great work 👍🙂
In Greece aside some of our guys, we consider very good the works of Ranchiman, Vasilief, Ostrogorsky, Diehl, Schlumberger. These are the top non Greek Byzantine scholars.
Of course, I highly recommend The Economic History of Byzantium You can find it for free to download here www.mediafire.com/file/sfg50yblgnysyb9/Laiou_Economic_History_of_Byzantium.pdf/file It is very comprehensive and each entry is done by an expert historian. For detailed histories, here are the best books by period that should be readily available: Seventh Century - Byzantium in the Seventh Century the Transformation of a Culture, second edition. by John Haldon. J B Bury's old but informative work that stretches from arcadius to Irene can be found here: archive.org/details/historyoflaterro02buryuoft/page/372/mode/2up For the Eighth Century there is the large Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era 680-850 by Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon that covers the eighth century and early ninth century. There is also the Formation of Christendom by Judith Herrin that takes a holistic look at the early Middle Ages and Byzantium in the early sixth to eighth centuries. For the Ninth Century, Warren Treadgold's The Byzantine Revival covers the crucial years from the reign of Constantine VI to Theophilus. J B Bury also has a work that covers events from Irene to Basil I but is very out of date. archive.org/details/historyofeastern00buryuoft/page/n8/mode/2up Unfortunately there is no specific recent work for the years from Basil I to Constantine VII. This period has attracted very little, readily available specific scholarly interest. From Constantine VII to Alexios I, Anthony Kaldellis' Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood is both detailed and recent. Though Kaldellis can be prone to over thinking his analysis. For the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Michael Angold's the Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204 (second edition) is very good as is Byzantium Confronts the West by Charles Brand which is a very detailed study of 1180-1204. The best history of the Nicaean Empire is Alice Gardener's old but detailed The Lascarids of Nicaea: the Story of an Empire in Exile. There is also Michael Angold's A Byzantine Government in Exile which is more modern and looks at the society and administration of the Nicaean Empire. For the Palaiologan period there is Donald Nicol's excellent The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261-1453. Jonathan Harries' The End of Byzantium covers in detail the fifteenth century Byzantine history from Manuel II to Constantine XI. For general histories that cover the whole period: For a short but very good book I would recommend The Byzantine Empire by Dionysius Stathakopoulos. However, if you are looking for something much longer and more detailed then one must get either A History of the Byzantine State or Society by Warren Treadgold (which was designed to replace Ostrogorsky's now very out of date work). Or the Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire by John Shepard. Again this is about 1000 pages long and very detailed. I hope this helps
@@louisritter7906 No worries Robert. Infact i ve benefited my self. Didn't know that Ostrogorsky is outdated. I need to buy my self, some of Professor's suggestions.
Just discovered this channel and absolutely love it, engaging videos but clearly very well researched and aware of scholarly debate. Keep it up P.S. Have you considered reaching out to some bigger channels for collabs, like Invicta to get some more attention to your channel, it's criminal you don't have more subs
In terms of outreach, I have so far collaborated with Real Crusades History, Fire of Learning and given a shout out to The SPQR Historian and Ottoman History Hub. I also sent emails to Al-Muqqadimah, where in the indefinite future we intend to do something about the wars between Theophilus and the Arabs which is on the back burner. I tried contacting Kings and generals but got nothing back, Knowledgia but thats it.
The Komnenoi did something incredibly difficult. They reversed within 100 years the fall of Byzantine empire. By the end of their era (even though Manuel was defeated at Myriokefalon) the Byzantine empire was still the strongest entity in Europe.
that seems to be the meme with them. generally those who gained territory are seen as great regardless of the long term impact and those who lost land always bad despite the possibility of their policies bearing fruit if they had been continued for in some cases just a year or 2 more.
Embarrassing, really. You think with the knowledge of the Ancient Persians, Greek Diodchi, and Roman Imperial History they wouldn’t have made those mistakes. But to be honest to be able to read those books, and find the information would have been a struggle for anyone back then. Iv said it before ill say it again, After the Arabs took Egypt,North Africa, and Spain, the Slavic Invasions, and the Lombards in Italy the Roman Empire became a Greek Kingdom centered around Asia Minor. Constantinople was just a link to an ancient past that let them claim the title of “Emperor of the Romans”.
I found myself coming back to this and your video on the Fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire by 1203 as the result of a few questions. I could have sworn ERH had a video on it, but I could use either a pointer to any video answering the questions, or ask if these questions could become the subjects of at least a video in the future. 1) I have not been able to find any information on the army disposition of the 4th Crusade. What few books and websites I have found talking about it only go so far as to mention that the crusaders originated from France, Venice, and the (Italian part of the) Holy Roman Empire. The best book I've found (an Osprey book on the 4th Crusade) says that no such information has survived and that sources do describe the crusading army says that the Romans were impressed (or intimidated) by the sheer size of the crusading army and by the large number of troops who were well armored (presumably in chainmail). Far be it from me to rely on a single source, can ERH shed some more light on this topic? 2) Is there any information on how life was under the rule of the Latins? Again, I thought ERH covered this, but I can't find the video covering the topic. In addition, I am curious if there's any information regarding the feudal structure of the Latin Empire's socio-military elements. Seeing how the army came from the HRE, France, and Venice, I know that the Holy Roman Empire had soldiers who were legally serfs, called ministeriales and referred to as "unfree" knights, but were socially ranked above their "free" counterparts in the nobility. Additionally, I found that in the 12th to 13th centuries, France had 4 to 5 classes/ranks of their knights. I have not gotten to read about knighthood in the Venetian Republic, and the lack of information that I've been able to find on the Latin Empire has become an object of curiousity. I guess, as a 3rd question, is there any information on the Latin structures of knighthood that the crusaders brought with them?
20:35 never thought I would have heard a Warcraft 3 BGM on a video about the Eastern Roman Empire :D Should've looked at the description. Someone LOVES the strategy genre :) BTW what's the music used on the outro? Anybody knows?
Thanks for pointing it out, by the time I realised the mistake I think I had already published the video. Hopefully, people will realise the first crusade didn't happen five years before the fourth.
In the map at around 8:20 there is an area in the middle of byzantine anatolian possesions called turkish caria. Didn't John ii reconquer that area in 1119-1120?
The map is from Warren Treagold's The Byzantine State and society. You are correct that John campaigned in the area and restored the land link between Attaleia and the rest of Byzantine Anatolia but never properly annexed Caria, or if he did it was quite volitile, the Turks of Caria attacked Manuel in 1159-1160. John II's reign is quite obscure due to the nature of the sources but they don't really mention him actually conquering Caria in 1119-1120. However, although it is not said it may have been the case that he took Caria or gained the submission of the Turks there were never loyal subjects and when the opportunity arose favoured the Sultan of Rum.
Thanks for the answer, great video by the way. What has me a bit confused is that the map around 3:00 seems to overexaggerate the size of Byzantine Anatolia during the 12th century compared to the map I mentioned before.
I wonder what could the emperors do then, what could be done to keep the loyalty of local elites? or could the imperial treasury be at a better state if the emperor did not introduce tax farming..?
Comparing the Macedonian era and the Komnenian era there does appear to be a marked increase in defensive warfare and a commitment to maintaining what they have with making the odd gain here and there. For example, Alexios I did make significant gains in Anatolia retaking the northern and western coasts but these largely linked to the first crusade and the crusade of 1101. When he had the opportunity for major conquests in his wars with Serbia and the Seljuks he chose to keep them as client states instead. This is less true for John and Manuel who were far more aggressive but this policy of having a quilt of client states rather than actually taking the territory for themselves continued.
Eastern Roman History But Manuel Literally launched a Conquest Of Sicily, Stomped Hungary and took most of the Balkans and even subjugated Antioch. Anatolia was really imo the biggest mistake of the Komnenos
@@tylerellis9097 no manuel knew that the saljik were more dangerous than the west he tired retaking Anatolia from 1143 to 1145 but no luck then second crusade came his biggest chance to reclaim lands yet he didn't want to break to peace with saljik and with weak guidance no support the crusaders were destroyed they double number then the first crusade yet he didn't help them the German forces were destroyed so bad that conrad left then he kept his usless vassal to saljik from 1158 to 1175 then the sultan of rum toke danishman and uniting the turks the time when manuel attack he was cocky and turks were full prepare for him they knew his gonna attack the capital and he lost he nearly die too he wasted to much time from 1148 to 1175 ad then when he died the turks toke south Anatolia cutting the way from Celica Armenia to western Anatolia then in few years they toke many lands in Anatolia after 1204 they toke sipon key city in north Anatolia cutting west Anatolia from tribazon then in 1270s they toke many land in Anatolia until the ottoman appeared so yes manuel wasted to much time he did good job on navy and venice and restaking dalmica aka bosnia and serbia and Croatia in 1167 ad as soon he died Hungary toke them in 1182 ad
I was recommended here by Fire of Learning. Just curious, and want to comment that your mic sounds a little weird and not so clear. Has anyone else mentioned that before?
At the time I had not removed the noise in the audio, since then I have learned how to do this and the audio quality is generally better. I hope you otherwise enjoyed our collaboration.
aze94 The error was to have allowed an expansion of the aristocracy at the costs of the State.As always greek aristocrats weren' nt but hungry predators impovering the State. Under the Amorid dynasty, aristocrats ( the dynatoi) were strictly controlled and promptly eliminated if they tried to divert the ressources of the state, the army ,the fleet,for their private caprices.
Caesar (or Kaisar) was an honourary title reserved for the son or close reletive of the emperor denoting the second in rank to the emperor himself, until 1081 when it was demoted. A Caesar was, as of the third century AD the title for the junior emperor. For example, Constantius I Chlorus was Caesar from AD292-305, then becoming Augustus (senior emperor) in 305-306. This title was largely used to designate an hier, Maurice made his son Theodosius Caesar, for instance. Hope that was helpful.
@@gilgalbiblewheel6313 So Augustus was an epiphet that each emperor took when they became emperor. So Constantine the Great was Dominus Nostre Constantinus Augustus. However, during the third century, the name Augustus was also used to denote seneority. So Diocletian was Augustus (senior emperor) and Galerius was Caesar (juniror emperor) when Galerius became senior emperor he dropped the name Caesar and became Augustus.
@@EasternRomanHistory Ah now it makes sense! I wonder when they started and when they stopped this in the Byzantine Empire. I know Heraclius called his son to be the co-Emperor. But I don't think Manuel Komnenos did that.
I have, I do and am currently in the middle of a Empire of Trebizond campaign. The Seljuk Turks have been pulverised and the Nicaeans are quacking in their boots. Although, my provinces are rebelling a lot and never have enough money. How about you?
@Star Star Yeah right....it was in decline since the 3rd century crisis dude...you perfectly know that decine can aways be reversed and it coud have been reversed even after the 4th crusade John III showed it in many occasions its just how everything major powers work when you had one going into decine it coud aways take advantage of the others to regain power like the byzanitne shoud have done when the seljuks fell into their own decline, it is a quesiton of opportunity rather than "its in declin its doomed" the history of the epire aways was with up and down so dont go with your "scholar" arugement "its in decin and it was a seketeton of itsef, it was a skeleton of itself at some point even before but it recovered
@Star Star You talk about decine like if it was an "end game" thing but it is not you aways can reverse a declin and its what they did since the golden age of ancient rome getting in decin and then reverse it
@@AdriatheBwitch First your text is missing some L's and second ..WHAT??? Did you watch the video? It says the reasons of how and why the Empire declined. Watch it again please.
No. I don't believe that the empire was doomed to fall and even then had Alexios IV managed to pay off the crusaders and fulfill at least some of his wild promises I consider it very likely that they would have left for Egypt as they intended. What the empire desperately needed was new leadership. Alexios IV and Isaac or a usurper like Mourtzuphalus or Theodore Laskaris, Alexios Komnenos, or someone like that may have been to turn the situation around. Not immediately but over time, there was a lot to do but as the Laskarids and Michael VIII showed, the empire was still capable of bouncing back.
@@EasternRomanHistory Yeah, this is what i think too, tell me Daniel, do you htink Alexios V was imcompetent? Or would he be able to turn the tide of the odd were differents?
16:44 "Bulgaria led by Vlach's". That doesn't make any sense, and i bet you see it the same way. The Vlach's didn't lead any "Bulgaria", the Empire was Vlach, the dynasty was Vlach, and the Empire was referred by numerous writers, wether being norse, western or eastern as "Vlachia". However, the Empire being referred as _'Bulgaria'_ by the Tsar's (of whom were Vlach's) was a Translatio Imperii. I bet no one would call the German Emperor's as Roman's
Nice video but I believe you downplay just how downtrodden Constantinople’s own traders had become in their own city. I feel this is often sold as a case of them “making less money”, when the reality for many was a struggle to survive and even poverty. Combine this with Latin pilidging and you can see the disdain for the Latins who treated the Romans as second class cattle and would blame them for every shortcoming of the crusades among other issues
@@douglasthompson7464 It deprives them of their "Romanness". They were Romans. Also, many nationalist Greeks are using the term Byzantine to de-romanize the Empire in an attempt to portray it as a purely Hellenic affair. Post scriptum. Why call the eastern half of the true Roman Empire Byzantine while we call the fake state of the Germans Holy Roman Empire? It makes no sense, and smells of malicious distortion of history.
He uses both terms interchangeably, which is how it should be. It makes the video both informative, and easily accessible. Professional historians generally take this same approach, and use them interchangeably.
Even if I liked your channel name, I really don't like it when you call them, always, Byzantines. You don't even use both terms, to show that they are truly interchangeable!
Seems you're pretty negative towards the romans here. You could of balanced it out a bit more the latins sound like saints in this. You also didn't mention the sackers were already excommunicated by the pope and the throne being taken by a usurper who didn't pay the crusaders outside Constantinople resulting the sack.
For Fire of Learnings follow up video please find it here:
th-cam.com/video/vJ2g7jTWYPM/w-d-xo.html
Ahhh I came back from his video,our voice is great.Ima subsrice
Great video! Good to work with you.
Thank you very much. It was great working together.
Dope as fuck crossover! 😎
Oh my God I found a channel that’s dedicated to the Eastern Roman Empire. BEST DAY EVER
Same
The Komnenoi (Alexius, John and Manuel) were great emperors but they did 2 terrible mistakes: they let the byzantine navy fall apart and they gave too many rights to Venice.
the second was a consequence of the first.
So, they were not so great, after all.
@@darthvenator2487 yeah
@@wankawanka3053 the anglos were even worst
I don't think this is quite correct. Alexios and John both tried to restore the fleet, whilst John and Manuel both tried to reverse the rights given to the Venetians, where Manuel seized basically everything they owned in Constantinople. When Venice retaliated, there was a naval battle in which the Byzantines were victorious in the 1170s. This shows that they at least had some reasonable capability still. Things really went wrong after Manuel
A major reason why the empire was in such dire straits after Manzikert was because it faced foreign pressure on three fronts. In addition to the Turks in Anatolia, there were the Pechenegs along the Danube and the Normans invading the Balkans. In the absence of the Normans, Alexios could have focused more on Anatolia earlier. Instead he had to concede Anatolia in order to fight the Normans, who were more of an existential threat. Alexios ended up being a miracle worker and who knows what he could have achieved under more favorable circumstances.
The crucifiction of a Christian empire (by Christians)
Starring: (in alphabetical order)
Alexius III as 'The opposite of Constantine XI'
Alexius IV as 'The useful idiot'
Boniface I as 'The opportunist'
Costantinople as 'The victim'
Crusaders as 'The pirates'
Doge Enrico Dandolo as 'Th' octogenarian chief, Byzantium's conquering foe'*
Philip of Swabia as 'The matchmaker'
Pope: Innocent III as 'Himself'
* referenced by the late Lord Byron in his poem Childe Harold's Pilgrimage
"pope innocent III". That's a very ironic name.
@@argentianguis6510 The Byzantines payed the price of decades of plots, backstabing, coups and dynastic infighting. Besides their foreign policy was terrible.
@@argentianguis6510 innocent the turd
@@darthvenator2487 Thaaat's Rome for ya. Punitive campaigns and senatorial shenanigans, but goddamn they rocked the drip
Why does so much of this script remind me of my homeland right now?
There is much to be learned from the pages of history it seems.
@@EasternRomanHistory speaking of decline, have you read John Glubb's "The Fate Of Empires", which goes over symptoms of decline in any empire/ nation state?
How have I not yet heard of this channel yet?
I'm a simple man
Fire of Learning says colab with you, I sub.
Well it's always easier to judge looking back. I feel the same, as the empire brought this on itself. Ambition can blind or hinder long term foresight. Seems a lot of these problems the East faced could have been avoided. If their leaders would have looked at past events, just in their own empire. That's just my thought. This video was exceptional great. Also I'm glad to hear you working with Justin on Fire of Learning. He does excellent videos of history.
Thank you very much Steven, it was a pleasure working with Justin and am happy with our results. I agree that it is always easier looking back and certainly decisions that were made at the time in hinsight werenot always the right ones. I consider Alexios, John and Manuel as exceptional emperors. None of them were to know that the fourth crusade was to happen. Certain things can certainly had their roots in their reigns but under a different set of circumstances they may not have been as much of a problem. I would consider it wrong to say that the crusade was the fault of anyone beyond those immediately involved ultimately. If you liked these, then check out the other videos I made about this era.
@@EasternRomanHistory I believe I already have. One of the reasons I really enjoy your videos. Is because you really do a good job of covering the dark times in depth. A lot of others I watch while good, seem to mostly focus on the high points. Like under Justinian, and Basil 2. I think highly of the Komnenos because the really held the Empire together through some terrible times. Yet they seemed to lack the foresight of the lack of strong center leadership. It's too bad, the Eastern empire was a very interesting civilization. I wonder what the world wound be like if they were still around. Any way keep up the great videos. Looking forward to the next.
Seems like a great channel, I'm glad I came across it 👍
Why is it that on my end, the title of these videos in the side playlist preview is the playlist of world war I videos I've watched earlier? IN any case what a gem! Thank you so much sir!
Fantastic ,profound and detailled analysis of the intricated multifarious and complicated causes of the decline of the East Roman Imperium !
An example for future historians !
I search up "Sack of Constantinople 1204" I find hundreds of videos. I search up "Massacre of Latins 1182" I find barely anything. Definitely some historical cherry picking going on. Thank you for representing both sides fairly.
Blame andronicos I love latin but still hate venice sorry 😢😢😢😢 venice is a devil 😡😡😡😡
Yes, but it's not surprising.
The West has to be bad, the West has to be backwards, the West has to be the litteral devil in flesh...
I certainly agree that 1204 was something far more harmful than beneficial in every way for the Christendom, but today's Orthodox seems to completely ignore the context of it. I once saw a Greek guy remarking that he would never forgive the Catholics for the sack of Constantinople, and well, then I wouldn't forgive them for what was done in 1182 either.
@@TorquemadaBouillon Yep. And that's without saying that the two events are not even comparable.
Ultimately the sack of Constantinople was just a bunch of greedy bastards organising a plunder party because they felt cheated that they hadn't been paid.
While the material loss was extreme, the same cannot be said about the human toll which was exceptionally low for such an event (about 3000 civilians, most of which died in the various accidental and intentional fires that resulted from the general unrest).
This is far from the unrestrained, premeditated and organised violence that took place during the Massacre of the Latin, where tens of thousands were raped, tortured and killed in cold blood regardless of age, sex and condition, with the few remaining survivors being sold to the Turks as slaves... all because they had had the audacity of setting up a successful business.
@@remilenoir1271 Both the sack of Constantinople and the massacre of Latins (which was mostly caused by the silly economic treaties with venice and others which put the ERE in an unequal position) were disastrous. One would've also thought that the Latins would have had enough when sacking Thessalonica in 1185 and themselves committing massacre, rape and desecration of the Churches in various ways.
Both side committed bad things. No doubt
Roman empires and classic warcraft theme song. So good!
Congratulations on your video! I didn't know there was a channel dedicated on the Eastern Roman Empire (nowadays commonly known as Byzantium). Keep up the great work 👍🙂
Thank you for your time in making this video! :)
It was a pleasure to make. Thank you.
Hello! Do you have any book (or other source) recomendations on the economy and/or detailed history of the byzantine empire?
In Greece aside some of our guys, we consider very good the works of Ranchiman, Vasilief, Ostrogorsky, Diehl, Schlumberger. These are the top non Greek Byzantine scholars.
Of course, I highly recommend The Economic History of Byzantium
You can find it for free to download here
www.mediafire.com/file/sfg50yblgnysyb9/Laiou_Economic_History_of_Byzantium.pdf/file
It is very comprehensive and each entry is done by an expert historian.
For detailed histories, here are the best books by period that should be readily available:
Seventh Century - Byzantium in the Seventh Century the Transformation of a Culture, second edition. by John Haldon.
J B Bury's old but informative work that stretches from arcadius to Irene can be found here:
archive.org/details/historyoflaterro02buryuoft/page/372/mode/2up
For the Eighth Century there is the large Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era 680-850 by Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon that covers the eighth century and early ninth century.
There is also the Formation of Christendom by Judith Herrin that takes a holistic look at the early Middle Ages and Byzantium in the early sixth to eighth centuries.
For the Ninth Century, Warren Treadgold's The Byzantine Revival covers the crucial years from the reign of Constantine VI to Theophilus.
J B Bury also has a work that covers events from Irene to Basil I but is very out of date.
archive.org/details/historyofeastern00buryuoft/page/n8/mode/2up
Unfortunately there is no specific recent work for the years from Basil I to Constantine VII. This period has attracted very little, readily available specific scholarly interest.
From Constantine VII to Alexios I, Anthony Kaldellis' Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood is both detailed and recent. Though Kaldellis can be prone to over thinking his analysis.
For the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Michael Angold's the Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204 (second edition) is very good as is Byzantium Confronts the West by Charles Brand which is a very detailed study of 1180-1204.
The best history of the Nicaean Empire is Alice Gardener's old but detailed The Lascarids of Nicaea: the Story of an Empire in Exile.
There is also Michael Angold's A Byzantine Government in Exile which is more modern and looks at the society and administration of the Nicaean Empire.
For the Palaiologan period there is Donald Nicol's excellent The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261-1453.
Jonathan Harries' The End of Byzantium covers in detail the fifteenth century Byzantine history from Manuel II to Constantine XI.
For general histories that cover the whole period: For a short but very good book I would recommend The Byzantine Empire by Dionysius Stathakopoulos.
However, if you are looking for something much longer and more detailed then one must get either A History of the Byzantine State or Society by Warren Treadgold (which was designed to replace Ostrogorsky's now very out of date work). Or the Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire by John Shepard. Again this is about 1000 pages long and very detailed.
I hope this helps
@@EasternRomanHistory Thank you very much! You helped me a lot.
@@keziahdelaney8174 Thanks for the recommendation!
@@louisritter7906 No worries Robert. Infact i ve benefited my self. Didn't know that Ostrogorsky is outdated. I need to buy my self, some of Professor's suggestions.
Just discovered this channel and absolutely love it, engaging videos but clearly very well researched and aware of scholarly debate. Keep it up
P.S. Have you considered reaching out to some bigger channels for collabs, like Invicta to get some more attention to your channel, it's criminal you don't have more subs
In terms of outreach, I have so far collaborated with Real Crusades History, Fire of Learning and given a shout out to The SPQR Historian and Ottoman History Hub. I also sent emails to Al-Muqqadimah, where in the indefinite future we intend to do something about the wars between Theophilus and the Arabs which is on the back burner. I tried contacting Kings and generals but got nothing back, Knowledgia but thats it.
Damn it, I thought the Komnenoi were godlike emperors, who barely made any mistake.
They mostly did what they coud really , i mean its easy to say things after its over but back then they did what was best to do
The Komnenoi did something incredibly difficult. They reversed within 100 years the fall of Byzantine empire. By the end of their era (even though Manuel was defeated at Myriokefalon) the Byzantine empire was still the strongest entity in Europe.
that seems to be the meme with them. generally those who gained territory are seen as great regardless of the long term impact and those who lost land always bad despite the possibility of their policies bearing fruit if they had been continued for in some cases just a year or 2 more.
@Terry Cupboards sounds like what a Bulgar would say to me :p
@@vasileiospaterakis1839 It's not like he's wrong
I like that map you places in at 15 minutes, it really shows how weak the Emperor was and how much of a Feudal king he became.
Embarrassing, really. You think with the knowledge of the Ancient Persians, Greek Diodchi, and Roman Imperial History they wouldn’t have made those mistakes.
But to be honest to be able to read those books, and find the information would have been a struggle for anyone back then.
Iv said it before ill say it again, After the Arabs took Egypt,North Africa, and Spain, the Slavic Invasions, and the Lombards in Italy the Roman Empire became a Greek Kingdom centered around Asia Minor. Constantinople was just a link to an ancient past that let them claim the title of “Emperor of the Romans”.
How long in average did the research take you ?
That's an outstanding work you're doing there .
Great video brother !!
Fire of Learning sent me. Sub'd and am looking forward to prowling through your content. All the best from Oz
Cheers
I found myself coming back to this and your video on the Fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire by 1203 as the result of a few questions. I could have sworn ERH had a video on it, but I could use either a pointer to any video answering the questions, or ask if these questions could become the subjects of at least a video in the future.
1) I have not been able to find any information on the army disposition of the 4th Crusade. What few books and websites I have found talking about it only go so far as to mention that the crusaders originated from France, Venice, and the (Italian part of the) Holy Roman Empire. The best book I've found (an Osprey book on the 4th Crusade) says that no such information has survived and that sources do describe the crusading army says that the Romans were impressed (or intimidated) by the sheer size of the crusading army and by the large number of troops who were well armored (presumably in chainmail). Far be it from me to rely on a single source, can ERH shed some more light on this topic?
2) Is there any information on how life was under the rule of the Latins? Again, I thought ERH covered this, but I can't find the video covering the topic. In addition, I am curious if there's any information regarding the feudal structure of the Latin Empire's socio-military elements. Seeing how the army came from the HRE, France, and Venice, I know that the Holy Roman Empire had soldiers who were legally serfs, called ministeriales and referred to as "unfree" knights, but were socially ranked above their "free" counterparts in the nobility. Additionally, I found that in the 12th to 13th centuries, France had 4 to 5 classes/ranks of their knights. I have not gotten to read about knighthood in the Venetian Republic, and the lack of information that I've been able to find on the Latin Empire has become an object of curiousity. I guess, as a 3rd question, is there any information on the Latin structures of knighthood that the crusaders brought with them?
20:35 never thought I would have heard a Warcraft 3 BGM on a video about the Eastern Roman Empire :D
Should've looked at the description. Someone LOVES the strategy genre :)
BTW what's the music used on the outro? Anybody knows?
Thank you very much. Excellent content. Hard data, no bulshit. Greetings from Prague!
Thanks you very much, greetings from England.
But i got to mention, at least you were honest by mentioning **at least** the Empire being ruled by Vlach's 16:44 maybe you should do a series on that
“Criticizing nature for giving her the hole and him the protrusion.”
24:08 First crusade happened in 1096-1099. Not 1196-1199.
Thanks for pointing it out, by the time I realised the mistake I think I had already published the video. Hopefully, people will realise the first crusade didn't happen five years before the fourth.
@@EasternRomanHistory No problem. Still waiting on the Total War: Attila - Eastern Roman Empire faction review :D
In the map at around 8:20 there is an area in the middle of byzantine anatolian possesions called turkish caria. Didn't John ii reconquer that area in 1119-1120?
The map is from Warren Treagold's The Byzantine State and society. You are correct that John campaigned in the area and restored the land link between Attaleia and the rest of Byzantine Anatolia but never properly annexed Caria, or if he did it was quite volitile, the Turks of Caria attacked Manuel in 1159-1160. John II's reign is quite obscure due to the nature of the sources but they don't really mention him actually conquering Caria in 1119-1120. However, although it is not said it may have been the case that he took Caria or gained the submission of the Turks there were never loyal subjects and when the opportunity arose favoured the Sultan of Rum.
Thanks for the answer, great video by the way. What has me a bit confused is that the map around 3:00 seems to overexaggerate the size of Byzantine Anatolia during the 12th century compared to the map I mentioned before.
This channel focus on eastern roman empire woww amazing 👍👍👍
I could watch this, Fall of Civilizations and Ancient Architects all day.... and all nite. Sprinkle in some KNG and History Marche.
The Seljuks didn't capture Caria before 1203, when the siege of Constantinople happened.
I wonder what could the emperors do then, what could be done to keep the loyalty of local elites? or could the imperial treasury be at a better state if the emperor did not introduce tax farming..?
The Komnenian lacked ambition for conquest? Well I thought they fought offensive at every front once they stabilized the empire.
Comparing the Macedonian era and the Komnenian era there does appear to be a marked increase in defensive warfare and a commitment to maintaining what they have with making the odd gain here and there. For example, Alexios I did make significant gains in Anatolia retaking the northern and western coasts but these largely linked to the first crusade and the crusade of 1101. When he had the opportunity for major conquests in his wars with Serbia and the Seljuks he chose to keep them as client states instead. This is less true for John and Manuel who were far more aggressive but this policy of having a quilt of client states rather than actually taking the territory for themselves continued.
Eastern Roman History But Manuel Literally launched a Conquest Of Sicily, Stomped Hungary and took most of the Balkans and even subjugated Antioch. Anatolia was really imo the biggest mistake of the Komnenos
@@tylerellis9097 no manuel knew that the saljik were more dangerous than the west he tired retaking Anatolia from 1143 to 1145 but no luck then second crusade came his biggest chance to reclaim lands yet he didn't want to break to peace with saljik and with weak guidance no support the crusaders were destroyed they double number then the first crusade yet he didn't help them the German forces were destroyed so bad that conrad left then he kept his usless vassal to saljik from 1158 to 1175 then the sultan of rum toke danishman and uniting the turks the time when manuel attack he was cocky and turks were full prepare for him they knew his gonna attack the capital and he lost he nearly die too he wasted to much time from 1148 to 1175 ad then when he died the turks toke south Anatolia cutting the way from Celica Armenia to western Anatolia then in few years they toke many lands in Anatolia after 1204 they toke sipon key city in north Anatolia cutting west Anatolia from tribazon then in 1270s they toke many land in Anatolia until the ottoman appeared so yes manuel wasted to much time he did good job on navy and venice and restaking dalmica aka bosnia and serbia and Croatia in 1167 ad as soon he died Hungary toke them in 1182 ad
Manuel had from 1143 to 1180 to get red of turks yet he rarely attack the east
I was recommended here by Fire of Learning. Just curious, and want to comment that your mic sounds a little weird and not so clear. Has anyone else mentioned that before?
At the time I had not removed the noise in the audio, since then I have learned how to do this and the audio quality is generally better. I hope you otherwise enjoyed our collaboration.
@@EasternRomanHistory Oh yes, I enjoyed lots. I look forward to learning more from you. Thank you.
Was playing wow classic while watching the video. Thought I had been logged out lol!
Lol, I myself have always liked Warcraft III but the Legends of Azaroth music is very good and thought it was perfect for my video.
Never in my life have I seen such single-minded incompetence and corruption.
aze94
The error was to have allowed an expansion of the aristocracy at the costs of the State.As always greek aristocrats weren' nt but hungry predators impovering the State.
Under the Amorid dynasty, aristocrats ( the dynatoi) were strictly controlled and promptly eliminated if they tried to divert the ressources of the state, the army ,the fleet,for their private caprices.
Minor detail (to be picky): First CVrusade started in 1095/96, not 1196.
Whoops, that is indeed an error on my part.
Trebizond is underrated...
True it held for so long
Hey is there also a western Roman history?
There is actually! There's a WRH video on Majorian. See here:
th-cam.com/video/7n-0zx_eRXQ/w-d-xo.html
Subscribed! Nice channel, man. I love Byzantium's history. Bring back Constantinople to Christianity!
Thank you very much. Thanks for the Sub. I have a bunch of other videos, check them out and see what you like.
URM If you want Constantinople to be Christian again, be a missionary. Don’t just talk. Go convert the Turks to Christianity.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 that is smart
if only i was in charge...
True 😞😞😞
Fire sent me, well done.
Cheers.
What is the meaning of the Byzantine office of Ceasar
Caesar (or Kaisar) was an honourary title reserved for the son or close reletive of the emperor denoting the second in rank to the emperor himself, until 1081 when it was demoted. A Caesar was, as of the third century AD the title for the junior emperor. For example, Constantius I Chlorus was Caesar from AD292-305, then becoming Augustus (senior emperor) in 305-306. This title was largely used to designate an hier, Maurice made his son Theodosius Caesar, for instance. Hope that was helpful.
@@EasternRomanHistory I think I understand. Although the term Emperor was used for the ruler. As for Augustus?
@@gilgalbiblewheel6313 So Augustus was an epiphet that each emperor took when they became emperor. So Constantine the Great was Dominus Nostre Constantinus Augustus. However, during the third century, the name Augustus was also used to denote seneority. So Diocletian was Augustus (senior emperor) and Galerius was Caesar (juniror emperor) when Galerius became senior emperor he dropped the name Caesar and became Augustus.
@@EasternRomanHistory Ah now it makes sense! I wonder when they started and when they stopped this in the Byzantine Empire. I know Heraclius called his son to be the co-Emperor. But I don't think Manuel Komnenos did that.
It goes back even further, as Vespasian's son Titus was declared Caesar and served as Vespasian's junior co-emperor while he was emperor.
I assume you know of it but do you play total war? Specifically total war atilla because they have a 1212 mod.
I have, I do and am currently in the middle of a Empire of Trebizond campaign. The Seljuk Turks have been pulverised and the Nicaeans are quacking in their boots. Although, my provinces are rebelling a lot and never have enough money. How about you?
Yall should collab more
We may well do.
So, i wonder then, do you think the byzantine empire was doomed to fall? even without the 4th crsuade?
@Star Star Yeah right....it was in decline since the 3rd century crisis dude...you perfectly know that decine can aways be reversed and it coud have been reversed even after the 4th crusade John III showed it in many occasions its just how everything major powers work when you had one going into decine it coud aways take advantage of the others to regain power like the byzanitne shoud have done when the seljuks fell into their own decline, it is a quesiton of opportunity rather than "its in declin its doomed" the history of the epire aways was with up and down so dont go with your "scholar" arugement "its in decin and it was a seketeton of itsef, it was a skeleton of itself at some point even before but it recovered
@Star Star You talk about decine like if it was an "end game" thing but it is not you aways can reverse a declin and its what they did since the golden age of ancient rome getting in decin and then reverse it
@@AdriatheBwitch First your text is missing some L's and second ..WHAT??? Did you watch the video? It says the reasons of how and why the Empire declined. Watch it again please.
No. I don't believe that the empire was doomed to fall and even then had Alexios IV managed to pay off the crusaders and fulfill at least some of his wild promises I consider it very likely that they would have left for Egypt as they intended. What the empire desperately needed was new leadership. Alexios IV and Isaac or a usurper like Mourtzuphalus or Theodore Laskaris, Alexios Komnenos, or someone like that may have been to turn the situation around. Not immediately but over time, there was a lot to do but as the Laskarids and Michael VIII showed, the empire was still capable of bouncing back.
@@EasternRomanHistory Yeah, this is what i think too, tell me Daniel, do you htink Alexios V was imcompetent? Or would he be able to turn the tide of the odd were differents?
16:44 "Bulgaria led by Vlach's". That doesn't make any sense, and i bet you see it the same way. The Vlach's didn't lead any "Bulgaria", the Empire was Vlach, the dynasty was Vlach, and the Empire was referred by numerous writers, wether being norse, western or eastern as "Vlachia". However, the Empire being referred as _'Bulgaria'_ by the Tsar's (of whom were Vlach's) was a Translatio Imperii. I bet no one would call the German Emperor's as Roman's
Yo is this the same man that does history buffs talking about movies and their historical accuracies??!
I am afraid not. Though we are both British.
Nice video but I believe you downplay just how downtrodden Constantinople’s own traders had become in their own city. I feel this is often sold as a case of them “making less money”, when the reality for many was a struggle to survive and even poverty. Combine this with Latin pilidging and you can see the disdain for the Latins who treated the
Romans as second class cattle and would blame them for every shortcoming of the crusades among other issues
Really seems like internal pettiness caused the downfall in the end
combination of alexius III stupidity + Dandelo's grudge/latin grudge+ oppurtunism but 90% of it was due to Alexius diverting the crusaders
God, how can GREEKS look down on the navy? How these aristocrats never realised how important navigation was to the ancient greeks?
Cry my Son Because The Capital Is Burning and it will Never Return as it Was...
Calls his channel "Eastern Roman" and in the video calls the romans "byzantines".
Awesome! The semantics police are here.
@@timivey5790 I think he`s right..Rome was not in the empire..Byzantine was the capital..what`s with the attitude ?
@@douglasthompson7464 It deprives them of their "Romanness". They were Romans. Also, many nationalist Greeks are using the term Byzantine to de-romanize the Empire in an attempt to portray it as a purely Hellenic affair. Post scriptum. Why call the eastern half of the true Roman Empire Byzantine while we call the fake state of the Germans Holy Roman Empire? It makes no sense, and smells of malicious distortion of history.
He uses both terms interchangeably, which is how it should be. It makes the video both informative, and easily accessible.
Professional historians generally take this same approach, and use them interchangeably.
nice wow music lol
Blizzard might come after u mate xD
They haven't yet XD
@@EasternRomanHistory We stand with you, if it happens, AS ONE!
Manual wasted to much time in non important stuff destroy the slujik men
Even if I liked your channel name, I really don't like it when you call them, always, Byzantines. You don't even use both terms, to show that they are truly interchangeable!
St john Basilica who destroyed
Seems you're pretty negative towards the romans here. You could of balanced it out a bit more the latins sound like saints in this. You also didn't mention the sackers were already excommunicated by the pope and the throne being taken by a usurper who didn't pay the crusaders outside Constantinople resulting the sack.
It wasn't a blunder
Turn the stupid music off!!,!