There is an old Greek folk song from Thessaly, which was a lament for the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, created a few years afterwards, and it says at a certain point, "μέσα με δέρνει ο θάνατος, ν' οξω με δέρνει ο Τούρκος, κι από την δεξιά μου την πλευρά Φράγκος με πολεμάει"... i.e, "from inside i was hit by death (implying the decadent situation of the state), from outside i was hit by the Turks, and from my right flank, the Franks fight against me". This folk song it's amazing because it gives the idea of how the simple people were still fiercely against the Latins, almost 3 centuries after the Crusades, and it summons perfectly in few words the situtation and the history of the last 4 centuries of the Eastern Roman Empire, and the war on two fronts, against the Latins and the Turks.
@@zamirroa Have you ever read a single source from the prototype? Both Anna Komnena and Choniates use the term Byzantion for the state extensively. If someone is bored to search it in the Greek prototype I will be glad to quote below the exact passages for you.
@@zamirroa Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων (Basileia Rhomaion), Ρωμαίων Αρχή (Rhomaion Arché) or Κράτος Ρωμαίων (Kratos Rhomaion) were all names of Byzantine state but in order for better understanding we call it Byzantine Empire because that's how it is known worldwide. Someone who is unfamiliar with its history might misunderstand it.
@@user-sc5iv2rp2t You misunderstand the term Byzantion. It is used for the city, not for the state. For example Constantine Porhyrogennitos uses it in "Περί Θεμάτων" when he describes the city. Literally, all the works of Byzantines describe the state as "Ρωμαίων Αρχή". You mentioned for example Anne Comnene. In her " Alexiad", book A,1, in literally the first verse she writes: "Ὁ βασιλεὺς Αλέξιος καὶ ἐμὸς πατὴρ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ τῶν σκήπτρων ἐπειλῆφθαι τῆς βασιλείας μέγα ὄφελος τῇ βασιλείᾳ Ρωμαίων γεγένηται... " We see that she writes: "βασιλείᾳ Ρωμαίων". Such names for the Byzantine Empire are full in all the works of Byzantines, from Prokopius to Anne Komnene.
It’s very fascinating that in many ways a heavy sense of Byzantine identity still exists until today; I’m not sure how prevalent it is in Greece, but I’m from the Levant, and a Byzantine identification is still very heavily present for many Christians from the Greek Orthodox Church (Byzantine Orthodox Church). If you come from a family that’s part of that community, so many elements of your world and Childhood are ingrained in Byzantine elements, including art, chant, music, terminology, and lots of other things …etc. Also adding to that fact, the local Arabic name for the community is still “Rūm Orthodox”, meaning “Orthodox Romans”.
Hello my brother. The state and the greek oligarchs are focus on the classical period because they are little bitches of the west. And the modern west is all about the ancient Greeks, democracy etc. But In reality the average Greek (even an atheist) feels much closer to the Byzantine indentity which is normal. How Is the Rum community in Levant ?
I'm from Salentos in far south Italy, here people speak a language called Griko that it is essentially a Greece dialect, similar to Koinè the main language during byzantine era, here we respect Constantinople's history, I suggest to all of you to come here in Otranto/Hydruntos and join 💪
I really like how throughout the video, the Eastern Romans are called Romans, as they would have called themselves, not Byzantines, what they were called by others later…
I also always enjoy seeing the maps with all the borders and nations of the day. I appreciate that you don‘t just annotate the immediate region you talk about in the video, but so much further out as well. It might not be pertinent to the content of this video, how borders were drawn at the time in the British Isles or the Iberian Peninsula, but I frequently pause the video, just to take a closer look and to remind myself of what was happening in other places at the time. Generally speaking, modern society likes to believe that globalization is a new phenomenon and matters were kept much more local or regional „way back when“, but really, the Crusades are a great example of how interconnected life and people were even „way back then“.
it does underline their worldview and personal convictions, though. To them, even though that Rome was no where near the territory they held, they were the Romans. The real Romans. Everyone else were Barbarians. The name „Byzantines“ doesn‘t have the same meaning.
really the term Byzantine refers to the *culture* of the eastern Romans as observed by western Renaissance scholars during the 16th-century and by that time it had long seized to be a political reality. The scholar who coined the term Byzantium was Hieronymus Wolf and for him it was supposed to highlight a Christian culture with roots in a pre-Christian past, not empire, even though it had been. It hints at an identity-shift in culture that according to some historians started around the time of Justinian, (6th-century), roughly around the time of the beginning ot the Early Medieval Period. I assume by this argument is that simply too much had changed in the East for them to justifiably be called Romans and Romans only, and that "Rome" is something that always will be synonymous with the Classical Civilization of the ancient world, i.e Ancient Rome, and doesn't belong to the Middle Ages. Political realities, successions and governments nothwithstanding. I don't claim to have an answer to these questions. They are raised by different historians and i'm sure there are differing views on this among them depending on who you ask/read.
You might be interested to know that although the term Byzantine was created centuries before, it only became widely adopted in Academia during the Crimean War when it was feared in the West that the Russians would create a puppet state based on the Eastern Roman Empire (the war started by Russia invading the Ottoman Empire). Byzantium was a deliberately empty term deployed for political reasons to derive the Eastern Roman Empire of any unifying identity and so undermine any attempt by Russia to re-create it. I learned about this from one of Antony Kaldellis’s podcasts - the academic who wrote Romanland and has most promoted the Roman identity of the Eastern Roman Empire
Fun fact: The word ‘Crusades’, wasn’t used when the wars first started. Sanctioned by the church, the Crusades were simply military expeditions. They got their current meaning in the late 18th century. The root of the word goes back to the 16th-century French word croisade, which essentially means ‘marked with the cross’.
Exactly. Although religious belief was a key motivator for recruitment, they were fundamentally (and especially in the first and last Crusades) geopolitical conflicts with significant impacts on commerce and economics, strategic positioning, access to resources, etc. In reality, no different to many other wars fought without core religious or ideological motivations. For the first few Crusades, the term "police action" might very well have been applied by contemporaries, had such a term existed back then! The last few, obviously, were existential wars regarding the future existence of the Balkans and Europe (including the Siege of Vienna).
I always thought Conquering Constantinople by the Ottomans was a massive success. But now I understand it was already destroyed within. Thank you Kings and Generals Team for this amazing documentary.
Correct. Manzikert, ie... Sultanate of Rum was really the end of them. Sad though, didn't have to be that way but they could not manage their internal corruption and because of this the leadership that did care could not stand against the Turks. A better foreign policy and a little respect might have put a stop to the Turk invasions before they even started as they were more interested in conquering Syria/Egypt areas... at first.
@@vulkunne1542 The Byzantium leadership that took notice of the Turkish threat was betrayed by their own and even after the Sultan spared the defeated Emporers life and realised him (which is unbelievable by the way for such an era) the Emporer returned home only to be captured and tortured. And yes, Turks never intended to establish themselves in Anatolia but almost invited to do so by disorder of the Empire. I think if it wasn't the Turks it would have certainly be the Bulgars or the Latins that took over. Ofcourse we will never know.
@@huseyincobanoglu531 Manzikert was a disaster because Byzantium lost eastern and part of central Anatolia. But what really destroyed the Empire was the fourth crusade, we see that after Mantzkert, with a competent emperor,, eastern empire found the strenghs to counter attack. But with the fall of Constantinople, it wasn't possible anymore, Venice took a huge place in the garden if Byzantines and it was too strong for the future Emperor. As usual with Byzantines, it's not the miliary defeat the disaster but the political mess just after.... Siege of Constantinople in 1453 is a real joke when you have in mind what was the city in 1204 or during the 12 century,.
I had to pause it dead on the 2 minute mark to stop and tell you how visually stunning that map looks....I subscribed around the 800,000 members days and since then the quality of your videos has multiplied immeasurably....thank you and thank you again!!
@@christianweibrecht6555 Roger that....I'm with ya....but hell I still listen to it while I'm "historiographing" myself to sleep....that narrator could put a tweaked out crack monster to sleep with his smooth ass "furthermores"!!!! Keep it up KAG!!
I am a huge fan of Greek history, as a Greek myself and have seen every single video of your channel about Greek history during my lunchtime. I appreciated every moment of them because they are so accurate and objective. For the byzantine part of history (I prefer to say the Romeiko part of history but is widely known as Byzantine) I have read numerous books with the most notable being the "history of the byzantine empire" of A. Vasiliev, and your videos depict the best what i have read in an animated way. Therefore I have to say a great thank you for your work, keep up with those great efforts and I hope someday a filmmaker company to make a film for this fascinating part of history which is literally non-existent.
Byzantine a term given by Rome’s enemies out of jealousy. England, France, Spain, Italy, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Albania (and more) all hate Eastern Rome for many reasons. Their elite know their power belongs to Rome not them. To make everyone forget, they call you Byzantine
Exactly they were than us(Turks). Moreover they are the reason fall of byzantine empire, they destroyed st.ramonos gate(edirnekapi in Turkish) that was point Ottomans attacked and conquered the city. Even if Turks have taken costantinople they did not destroyed any historical monument or church(except hypodrom), they just converted churchs to mosque.
This occupation caused Istanbul/Constantinapole to lose its Byzantine architecture. Many artifacts and structures from Byzantium were either looted, plundered or vandalized. Along with this occupation, many artifacts were smuggled to Europe. The quadrigo bronze horse statues in St. Marco's Basilica, the tetrahi statues, the bronze works of the walled obelisk in Sultanahmet Square are just a few of the known ones. The priceless wealth of Istanbul/Constantinapole was unfortunately extinguished by the crusaders. Only a few valuable items were preserved, but compared to what was lost, almost nothing was preserved. Imagine that many works from Istanbul now decorate buildings, structures, streets or palaces in Europe. And almost everyone who sees it says, "Oh, how beautifully made." says. But they do not know that they are the wealth of Istanbul/Constantinapole and Byzantium.
Warlords with their selfish greed for power robbed everyone of massive wealth. Those riches were because one massive roman empire economy building for 1k years. Many wonders were built at the height in antiquity. But countless countries including yours is ran by morons who rather have sole power of a small state than see everyone united. They rather destroy shit than let things continue building. If constantinople never had plague or fallen (even as a small corrupt state), it would by far be the riches city in the world today
In this comment I wanted to emphasize the horror of the crusader raids in Istanbul/Constantinopole. You looked at it from a political point of view. Also, I don't understand why you want people to be united. People are made up of different races and tribes. Their religions, traditions and even food cultures are different. Therefore, they do not have a common goal and therefore it is only natural that they want to live by establishing small states. But when they occupy each other's land, they have to respect what the people of other cultures have built there and what is sacred. The plunder mentality, just like the crusaders, does not respect this and burns and even steals those holy ones. Unlike your opinion, I don't think countless rulers and states act with this looting mentality. If it were, the temple of Zeus in the ancient city of Aizanoi would have been destroyed long ago or you wouldn't be able to see the pyramids in Egypt and Sudan. Or you couldn't see the Ziggurats in Iraq and therefore you wouldn't know what great architects societies like the Sumerians and Babylonians were. I think it has to do with the intellectuality of these societies, and in the 10-12th centuries European societies were not intellectual enough and therefore thought ignorantly and cruelly. Or as an other example you can count the Mongols. Genghis Khan may have been a war genius, but he was too culturally ignorant and cruel. Ancient Mesopotamian cities such as Persepolis and Baghdad unfortunately suffered greatly from his cruelty, and the result is massive destruction and plunder.
This is so sad... It is like a quote from Silmarillion "But of bliss and glad life there is little to be said, before it ends; as works fair and wonderful, while still they endure for eyes to see, are their own record, and only when they are in peril or broken for ever do they pass into song"
2:05, that was Liutprand mistake, he insulted Basileus by addresing his Emperor as King of the Romans while everyone knows even England in that time, Basileus was the real King of the Romans
This is incredible! I would love to have an even more detailed account of the events regarding the Byzantine empire around this time and the crusades in general.
historical perspective is so fascinating whatever book or video on history I read or watch I find myself rooting for someone or a side and then when I'm given the others sides story I root for them against those whom I originally supported. History is so marred in grey complexity I find it so enjoyable being shown both sides. Very rarely is one side overwhelming in the right.
True, though to prevent any bias, I tend to perceive the sides through a, through much effort, objective perspective.Historical nuances and intricacies make history quite a treat if I may say.
Because everyone hated them. The holy roman empire exists to mock it. Guess who writes their history? Pretenders to roman territories. They have 0 interest in legitimizing Rome ever again. In fear, call them Byzantine. And Greek leaders dont want to give up power either, they rather keep their weak ancient greek culture instead of letting the ruler of spain hold roman power because he has its paper rights.
Alexios inviting the crusaders is like when you invite a friend over you haven't seen in years, then you realize how much they've changed and that you actually can't stand them.
Crusades from western perspective: “Lerooooooy Jenkins!” Crusades from muslim perspective: “WTF is that?!” Crusades from Byzantine perspective: “(Chuckles) I’m in danger…”.
@@vitorpereira9515 It was more so about their political power than a need for money. Philippe le Bel saw the Templar organisation as a state in the state which threatened the centralised monarchical power; the fact that they were rich and the wealth that was to be gained in dissolving the order was only a happy consequence of that.
Eastern Roman history, among other histories, is always a treat for me, given that I've been studying roman history for years now and so watching these vids Kings and Generals, again, among others is always refreshing, especially when looking at those attractive maps ;)
You fail to mention at the beginning that the wrath and treatment (even short imprisonment) by the rough and soldier like Nicephoros Phokas of Liutprand of Cremona was instigated by the latter's addressing the Emperor(Basileus) as Emperor of the Greeks and not with his proper title as Emperor of the Romans.
To be fair, he was treated rough from the Start. But that’s also because he was a diplomat of the HRE who was at War with them and a turncoat from the Kingdom of Italy, Byzantium’s ally destroyed by Otto. And to be fair the HRE had the balls to send a diplomat making demands when the Byzantines were beating that Holy Roman Ass in a war they didn’t start.
@@SwedishSinologyNerd On the other hand, it lasted a thousand years. That is a kind of stability other nations dream of, even if there was slow decline.
Of every crusade since the first .... they were supportive of it at the start but they witnessed many cases of looting which prompted them to despise the crusaders however political leaders didn't hate it untill things went south with Antioch
@@obaidaserdar1780 Yeah the First Crusade had the full support of the Byzantine army and navy with both in unison until Antioch. People forget Byzantine officials and Guides were with the Crusaders. Everything went to shit when that Deserter misled Alexios.
@@tylerellis9097 they had the support of the leadership not the peasants ...the peasants were very supportive at the start but as soon as the soldiers started abusing the land they are passing by the people of eastern empire detested them You have to understand that crusaders thought of eastern Christians as heretics and Latinised their churches or destroyed it and massacred many of them ... something caused many eastern Christians to fight to the side of Muslims
@@obaidaserdar1780 There is no recorded massacres of an Orthodox Town in the first Crusade, the crusader army was trailed by a Byzantine one when it went through Byzantine territory. One town was by Massacred by Bohemond when he went off course but it was a Paulican Town which the Catholics actually considered Heretics. Same with the 2nd no Orthodox towns were massacred. We also know Native townsmen tried to swindle the Crusaders. Byzantine sources tell Manuel In the 2nd told his governors to inflate grain prices when the Crusaders arrived in Bulgaria. Their pillaging wasn’t always unjustified. There was no widespread persecution and harassment Of Orthodoxs by Catholics until after the 4th Crusade. Orthodox Greek Churches in Italy were allowed to operate in Greek with no persecution from the Normans or Church until the 1200s. There was mistrust and cultural differences between the sides but it wasn’t due to their faiths yet. Hungary and Croatia also got pillaged by crossing Crusading Armies despite being Catholic. The Third Crusade was a mess on both sides and Serbian/Bulgarian interaction flaring things up alongside Byzantine countermoves didn’t help. And peasants aren’t the ones writing our sources. Educated Priests and Officals safe in Constantinople, Thessaloniki and other Urban walled Cities were.
@@tylerellis9097 the massacres I have mentioned was against the Levant Christians however records of peasants resentment exists in the Assyrian records of churches which is by the way does care about peasants not just rulers ...again yeah rulers weren't annoyed till fourth crusade but public opinion didn't support the crusades ....that opinion is eventually what led to the Byzantine power struggle to take place More over the prices inflation is normal when armies pass an area with out proper rationing which was the lesson crusaders learned the hard way ...and it wasn't in anyway a justification for the acts in Hungary
Pope John Paul II during his visit to Athens 2001 apologize and ask for mercy to Greek Patriarch for Crusaders in 1204 "we turned against the brothers in Christ." sayd. Pope Francis in Athens (2021) repeated this apology to the Greeks
Ioannes Cinnamos' history (επιτομή ιστοριών) is an amazing work. From all the writers you have mentioned Cinnamos, in my oppinion, is better because he emphasizes to military issues instead of the court.
18:12 Władysław III had an enormous potential as a ruler, and could've potentially taken Byznatium under his protection... But of course he had to change the course of history by dying like the 20-year old idiot he was (says an 18 year old, none the wiser)
I live in the city of Cologne in Germany. The city was founded by the Romans as Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis. During medieval times it was part of the holy Roman empire and the language was German. Here is a church that has the tomp of a Greek aristocratic lady. Her name is theophanu. She was sent from Constantinople to marry the German Kaiser they appreciated her as daughter of the advances and civilized roman empire and they hoped that that will give Legitimation to their empire
Because Rome still is the envy of the world. Even if we recreated it, we can never replace the networking and economy built over a thousand years that Constantinople had. Even then, they were weaker than during Antiquity where it afforded so many wonders that people are still in awe of today because they were united. Now we are run by weak leaders and separated as English, French, Italians, Libyans, Egyptians, Israeli, Syrians, Turks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Ukrainian, Greek, and more. We used to Roman and better for it.
I will always like and appreciate another point of view when it comes to history. And it seems to be that both the Byzantines and the Western Europeans were laboring under misconceptions and arrogance about the other in equal measure. Such things always lead to tragedy. And did. (Sack of Constantinople 4th Crusade).
Eight centuries had passed since the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, yet watching it all unfold still filled me with a deep sense of loss. I’m not even Greek or Christian, but as a young history student, I can hardly bear the weight of what was lost 😢
I wonder if Constantinople would've been captured by the Turks had the relations between Byzantines and the West been good. As Will Durant said, no civilization is destroyed from outside until it has destroyed itself from inside.
This must be an example for reading history from all perspectives.Then you figure out what is happening. Whoever read Byzantine history, will realize the issues of this region.
Great video and I can't wait for next one! I am also glad to see in the last section of the video that Serbia is shown as the original owner of modern - day Kosovo. This further supports the well-known fact that Serbs were far greater majority in that region during middle ages and it was them who erected thousands of churches and monasteries that are still present today (some are under UNESCO protection).
I would like to see a video focusing on John II and Manuel I, the latter which I think you covered too harshly. He had many accomplishments during his reign and had the emperor had a strong succession it could have continued to be very successful. The treasury was not empty at the end of his reign as the Empire was collecting strong revenue more depleted would be correct. -Decisive victory against Hungary Battle of Sirmium which consolidated Byzantine control of the Western Balkans -The Egypt campaign failure is more on the crusader states than the Empire -Battle of Myriocephalum was not very significant defeat more a morale defeat Byzantines crushed that same Turkish army a year later at the Battle of Hyelion and Leimocheir, in 1179 a strong peace was confirmed -He handled the second crusade brilliantly. -Broke the Venice Monopoly.
I would love to see this video too ! Manuel wasn't a bad emperor but in my opinion he distracted too much from the goal pursued carefully by his fater John (an amazing emperor from what i read), goal being : destroy piece by piece, strike by strike the seljuks realms. His rule wasn't bad, but he didn't prepare well the sucession with his young son on the throne, helped by his unpopular mother. He kept the power firmly but he needed a really strong heir to continue after his death. Myriocephalum is famous but indeed had 0 impact on Byzantine Power, it had more an impact on Manuel's health eventually. If Manuel had focused to totally destroy and reconquer Anatolia at the end of his rule, the Byzantines Empire would have been in a more comfortable situation to face the f.g th Crusade and its impacts.
@@alex3987654 agreed completely in fact in the 1160's had campaigned in Anatolia instead of wasting his time in Italy he would have taken Konya much easier since the Turks were not at all united by that point. But yes John II was a great ruler, had Manuel followed what his father did the history of Anatolia would be different. He should have left Bela as Heir or at least protector but yes it all makes for fascinating discussion.
This Byzantine European Schism heavily infleunced the relations between the West and the Russian Empire in later centuries especially in the lead up to the Crimean War
Can you explain (romance of the three kingdoms) battle of hefei? no one has explained it even though it was a remarkable battle where 800 soldiers of wei beat back 100,000 soldiers of wu.
Have you done an episode on Shaka Zulu? I always admired the story of a bastard born son hated from birth becoming a leader by his own right and uniting dozens of long warring tribes under his rule
The defeat at Myriokephalon was actually not that bad. The following year the Byzantines annihilated a Seljuk army that had invaded Byzantine territory.
Yeah the Byzantines didn’t even lose any actual territory from it, people forget it was a Byzantine Offensive and that most of the army escaped. This vid is an unjustified slaughter of Manuel imo that isn’t supported at all by Modern Byzantine Historians. He has his flaws but when you analyze all his campaigns, most of them ended benefiting the Empire in some way. Not having a proper heir and the Komnenos system itself were the problems.
@@tylerellis9097 Sort of how Basil II left the empire without an heir led to the crisis in the late 11th century. The empire is strong when there is a strong dynasty with a guaranteed succession, when there isn't the wheels come off. The Macedonian and Komnenoi dynasties prove that rule I think.
@@ioannestheiberian3955 Especially True for the Komnenoi and beyond because as Paul Stephenson sums in his book Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, when you make the Throne and government based on the nobleness of your families blood, suddenly the entire extended family become valid candidates for the Throne. That’s why Andronikos took the Throne so easily where as during the Macedonian era he wouldn’t have even gotten close. But during the Empire before the Komnenoi I wouldn’t necessarily say so. Dynastic ties weren’t required for high government positions and Kaldellis would argue didn’t significantly help preserve your Throne either. The position was seen as Noble but not the Family. The Macedonian dynasty got subjected 3 times, by Romanos Lekapenos, Nikephoros Phocas and John Tzimeskes Kourkouas. 3 Emperors from different dynasties(2 out of the 3 considered Armenian) Yet all 3 are considered successful Emperors. They legitimized their rule by keeping the emperor as a junior puppet and establishing marriage ties while promoting their own families to the purple. Yet their families were never venerated as Noble by the People or nobility. They and the Macedonian Emperor could be deposed. Even Basil II dealt with 3 civil wars. His Nieces were secured by his long successful near 50 year Reign There was 50 years of non dynastic succession after Basil yet things only went to shit under Constantine Doukas. Constantine Monomachos, Romanos Agyos And Isaac Komnenos are all overall regarded as Competent Emperors yet ironically it was the Doukas dynasty who led the empire to its dire straights. The Golden age of Byzantium was overall a mix of dynastic and non dynastic Emperors
From reading Kaldellis' book I got that both the non-dynastic emperors like Lekapenos, Phokas, and Tzimeskes got their legitimacy through being co-emperors with a Macedonian junior emperor. I think that this gave the Roman people a sense of assured continuation of a popular and successful dynasty and also giving competent and talented leaders the top position. Of course this is not by design but by an accident of history.
"The Catholic Constantine XI' - is this correct? Was under the impression he followed Orthodoxy but was willing to accept his churches subservience to the Latin rite.
09:20 how do the borders of Rum make any sense? I mean, how can a country be landlocked all over the place with such a narrow ring around it, not making any successful push to any shore so near? And, to approach the question from another angle, how is that ring defendable? thank you
There is no subject honestly, Eastern Roman Empire was alive during this time, Romans that's all. It's only jealous western historians during the XVII/XVIII who decided to name the empire Byzantium, because they didn't accept that the empire of Komnenos was the heir of Auguste.
@@alex3987654 The term Byzantine is ahistorical. But the Greek cultural identity of the empire along with its Roman political heritage is undisputed. Even ij modern times Greeks use the term "romios" aka Roman to selfidentify
@@MPOTSARIS20 George Acropolites said they were Graikoi (Greek-speakers) and Romans. However, if you read his work "Kata Latinos" the word Hellene is never used. It is a small detail but it makes a big difference. The "Byzantines" were Greek-speaking Romans, but not Hellenes. The ancient Hellenes worshiped demonic entities in the veiwpoint of the byzantine Romans, and thus were not Hellenes.
@@alex3987654 You should stop with that ridiculous notion of jealousy. No one in Europe in the XVIIth century was jealous of some long fallen greco-roman empire that was already a shadow of its former self since a millenia by the time it had fallen to the Ottomans. Europeans only used the term "Byzantine" as a matter of convenience (since the Roman Empire was named after Rome, it was only logical that its Eastern counterpart, long removed from the City both culturally and geographically be named after its own capital, Byzantium). Europeans by the XVIIth century were litteraly the rulers of the World, there was nothing above them but God, and the former Byzantine Empire was nothing more to them than a eastern curiosity from the Middle Ages. Not anything to fuel any amount of jealousy.
There is an old Greek folk song from Thessaly, which was a lament for the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, created a few years afterwards, and it says at a certain point, "μέσα με δέρνει ο θάνατος, ν' οξω με δέρνει ο Τούρκος, κι από την δεξιά μου την πλευρά Φράγκος με πολεμάει"... i.e, "from inside i was hit by death (implying the decadent situation of the state), from outside i was hit by the Turks, and from my right flank, the Franks fight against me". This folk song it's amazing because it gives the idea of how the simple people were still fiercely against the Latins, almost 3 centuries after the Crusades, and it summons perfectly in few words the situtation and the history of the last 4 centuries of the Eastern Roman Empire, and the war on two fronts, against the Latins and the Turks.
Better the Turkish turban than the Papal tiara.
@@dudenamedhero And at the end the disaster came by both of them, but mainly from inside...
@@dudenamedhero better in our own
@@dudenamedhero as I Turk I much prefer unity of anatolia
Sad but elegant and beautiful
History IS always told from someone's point of view. I am so glad Byzantium is getting the attention it deserves lately!
Byzantine empire ? Anhh you mean Basileia Rhomaion " Roman Empire"
@@zamirroa Have you ever read a single source from the prototype? Both Anna Komnena and Choniates use the term Byzantion for the state extensively. If someone is bored to search it in the Greek prototype I will be glad to quote below the exact passages for you.
@@zamirroa Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων (Basileia Rhomaion), Ρωμαίων Αρχή (Rhomaion Arché) or Κράτος Ρωμαίων (Kratos Rhomaion) were all names of Byzantine state but in order for better understanding we call it Byzantine Empire because that's how it is known worldwide. Someone who is unfamiliar with its history might misunderstand it.
Alexiad 2.6.6, second book. "Βυζαντιω" describes the state. That is for starter. Alexiad has 15 books.
@@user-sc5iv2rp2t You misunderstand the term Byzantion. It is used for the city, not for the state. For example Constantine Porhyrogennitos uses it in "Περί Θεμάτων" when he describes the city. Literally, all the works of Byzantines describe the state as "Ρωμαίων Αρχή". You mentioned for example Anne Comnene. In her " Alexiad", book A,1, in literally the first verse she writes: "Ὁ βασιλεὺς Αλέξιος καὶ ἐμὸς πατὴρ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ τῶν σκήπτρων ἐπειλῆφθαι τῆς βασιλείας μέγα ὄφελος τῇ βασιλείᾳ Ρωμαίων γεγένηται... " We see that she writes: "βασιλείᾳ Ρωμαίων". Such names for the Byzantine Empire are full in all the works of Byzantines, from Prokopius to Anne Komnene.
It’s very fascinating that in many ways a heavy sense of Byzantine identity still exists until today; I’m not sure how prevalent it is in Greece, but I’m from the Levant, and a Byzantine identification is still very heavily present for many Christians from the Greek Orthodox Church (Byzantine Orthodox Church). If you come from a family that’s part of that community, so many elements of your world and Childhood are ingrained in Byzantine elements, including art, chant, music, terminology, and lots of other things …etc.
Also adding to that fact, the local Arabic name for the community is still “Rūm Orthodox”, meaning “Orthodox Romans”.
Greeks today consider themselves very much to be the direct descendants of the Byzantine 'Romans'
Hello my brother. The state and the greek oligarchs are focus on the classical period because they are
little bitches of the west. And the modern west is all about the ancient Greeks, democracy etc. But In reality the average Greek (even an atheist) feels much closer to the Byzantine indentity which is normal. How Is the Rum community in Levant ?
Where are you from?
@@forgetful9845 I'm a Greek living in Australia.
I'm from Salentos in far south Italy, here people speak a language called Griko that it is essentially a Greece dialect, similar to Koinè the main language during byzantine era, here we respect Constantinople's history, I suggest to all of you to come here in Otranto/Hydruntos and join 💪
I really like how throughout the video, the Eastern Romans are called Romans, as they would have called themselves, not Byzantines, what they were called by others later…
I also always enjoy seeing the maps with all the borders and nations of the day. I appreciate that you don‘t just annotate the immediate region you talk about in the video, but so much further out as well. It might not be pertinent to the content of this video, how borders were drawn at the time in the British Isles or the Iberian Peninsula, but I frequently pause the video, just to take a closer look and to remind myself of what was happening in other places at the time. Generally speaking, modern society likes to believe that globalization is a new phenomenon and matters were kept much more local or regional „way back when“, but really, the Crusades are a great example of how interconnected life and people were even „way back then“.
it does underline their worldview and personal convictions, though. To them, even though that Rome was no where near the territory they held, they were the Romans. The real Romans. Everyone else were Barbarians. The name „Byzantines“ doesn‘t have the same meaning.
really the term Byzantine refers to the *culture* of the eastern Romans as observed by western Renaissance scholars during the 16th-century and by that time it had long seized to be a political reality. The scholar who coined the term Byzantium was Hieronymus Wolf and for him it was supposed to highlight a Christian culture with roots in a pre-Christian past, not empire, even though it had been. It hints at an identity-shift in culture that according to some historians started around the time of Justinian, (6th-century), roughly around the time of the beginning ot the Early Medieval Period.
I assume by this argument is that simply too much had changed in the East for them to justifiably be called Romans and Romans only, and that "Rome" is something that always will be synonymous with the Classical Civilization of the ancient world, i.e Ancient Rome, and doesn't belong to the Middle Ages. Political realities, successions and governments nothwithstanding.
I don't claim to have an answer to these questions. They are raised by different historians and i'm sure there are differing views on this among them depending on who you ask/read.
If you no longer exist, people will call you and say about you whatever they like.
You might be interested to know that although the term Byzantine was created centuries before, it only became widely adopted in Academia during the Crimean War when it was feared in the West that the Russians would create a puppet state based on the Eastern Roman Empire (the war started by Russia invading the Ottoman Empire). Byzantium was a deliberately empty term deployed for political reasons to derive the Eastern Roman Empire of any unifying identity and so undermine any attempt by Russia to re-create it. I learned about this from one of Antony Kaldellis’s podcasts - the academic who wrote Romanland and has most promoted the Roman identity of the Eastern Roman Empire
Fun fact: The word ‘Crusades’, wasn’t used when the wars first started. Sanctioned by the church, the Crusades were simply military expeditions. They got their current meaning in the late 18th century. The root of the word goes back to the 16th-century French word croisade, which essentially means ‘marked with the cross’.
Wow I actually never knew this, thank you! Also your channel isn’t to bad itself, great content. You earned a new sub!
Catholic here and proud of what happened
Almost all historical expressions and names are terms
Exactly. Although religious belief was a key motivator for recruitment, they were fundamentally (and especially in the first and last Crusades) geopolitical conflicts with significant impacts on commerce and economics, strategic positioning, access to resources, etc. In reality, no different to many other wars fought without core religious or ideological motivations. For the first few Crusades, the term "police action" might very well have been applied by contemporaries, had such a term existed back then! The last few, obviously, were existential wars regarding the future existence of the Balkans and Europe (including the Siege of Vienna).
PepoG
I always thought Conquering Constantinople by the Ottomans was a massive success. But now I understand it was already destroyed within. Thank you Kings and Generals Team for this amazing documentary.
Correct. Manzikert, ie... Sultanate of Rum was really the end of them. Sad though, didn't have to be that way but they could not manage their internal corruption and because of this the leadership that did care could not stand against the Turks. A better foreign policy and a little respect might have put a stop to the Turk invasions before they even started as they were more interested in conquering Syria/Egypt areas... at first.
@@vulkunne1542 The Byzantium leadership that took notice of the Turkish threat was betrayed by their own and even after the Sultan spared the defeated Emporers life and realised him (which is unbelievable by the way for such an era) the Emporer returned home only to be captured and tortured. And yes, Turks never intended to establish themselves in Anatolia but almost invited to do so by disorder of the Empire. I think if it wasn't the Turks it would have certainly be the Bulgars or the Latins that took over. Ofcourse we will never know.
@@huseyincobanoglu531 Yeah that's true.
@@huseyincobanoglu531 Manzikert was a disaster because Byzantium lost eastern and part of central Anatolia. But what really destroyed the Empire was the fourth crusade, we see that after Mantzkert, with a competent emperor,, eastern empire found the strenghs to counter attack. But with the fall of Constantinople, it wasn't possible anymore, Venice took a huge place in the garden if Byzantines and it was too strong for the future Emperor. As usual with Byzantines, it's not the miliary defeat the disaster but the political mess just after.... Siege of Constantinople in 1453 is a real joke when you have in mind what was the city in 1204 or during the 12 century,.
@@alex3987654 couldn't agree more
I had to pause it dead on the 2 minute mark to stop and tell you how visually stunning that map looks....I subscribed around the 800,000 members days and since then the quality of your videos has multiplied immeasurably....thank you and thank you again!!
The maps are the reason why I subscribed and watch the videos instead of just listening
@@christianweibrecht6555 Roger that....I'm with ya....but hell I still listen to it while I'm "historiographing" myself to sleep....that narrator could put a tweaked out crack monster to sleep with his smooth ass "furthermores"!!!!
Keep it up KAG!!
I am a huge fan of Greek history, as a Greek myself and have seen every single video of your channel about Greek history during my lunchtime. I appreciated every moment of them because they are so accurate and objective. For the byzantine part of history (I prefer to say the Romeiko part of history but is widely known as Byzantine) I have read numerous books with the most notable being the "history of the byzantine empire" of A. Vasiliev, and your videos depict the best what i have read in an animated way.
Therefore I have to say a great thank you for your work, keep up with those great efforts and I hope someday a filmmaker company to make a film for this fascinating part of history which is literally non-existent.
Byzantine a term given by Rome’s enemies out of jealousy. England, France, Spain, Italy, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Albania (and more) all hate Eastern Rome for many reasons. Their elite know their power belongs to Rome not them. To make everyone forget, they call you Byzantine
So you Greeks truly feel Romans…mad respect from a Roman himself.
Una faccia una razza 🇮🇹❤️🇬🇷
@@AstralisSirius 🇮🇹❤️🇬🇷
Anthony Kaldellis has a new book on the Eastern Roman Empire coming up soon. Should be more up date than A. Vasiliev's books.
@@AstralisSirius IT---> Lombard (not Roman xD)
Thank you, Kings and Generals for yet another answer to a question I never knew I wanted an answer to.
The Byzantines had a lot of bad times in their history, and having the crusaders rampaging around their lands is definitely one of them 😟
Exactly they were than us(Turks). Moreover they are the reason fall of byzantine empire, they destroyed st.ramonos gate(edirnekapi in Turkish) that was point Ottomans attacked and conquered the city. Even if Turks have taken costantinople they did not destroyed any historical monument or church(except hypodrom), they just converted churchs to mosque.
@@hasantorun5410 which is sad. hope the greeks retains constantinople.
@@midgetporn9735 in their dreams maybe.
@@midgetporn9735 ha ha ha... let them try
@@midgetporn9735 thanks for your thoughts midget porn
This occupation caused Istanbul/Constantinapole to lose its Byzantine architecture. Many artifacts and structures from Byzantium were either looted, plundered or vandalized. Along with this occupation, many artifacts were smuggled to Europe. The quadrigo bronze horse statues in St. Marco's Basilica, the tetrahi statues, the bronze works of the walled obelisk in Sultanahmet Square are just a few of the known ones. The priceless wealth of Istanbul/Constantinapole was unfortunately extinguished by the crusaders. Only a few valuable items were preserved, but compared to what was lost, almost nothing was preserved. Imagine that many works from Istanbul now decorate buildings, structures, streets or palaces in Europe. And almost everyone who sees it says, "Oh, how beautifully made." says. But they do not know that they are the wealth of Istanbul/Constantinapole and Byzantium.
Warlords with their selfish greed for power robbed everyone of massive wealth. Those riches were because one massive roman empire economy building for 1k years. Many wonders were built at the height in antiquity. But countless countries including yours is ran by morons who rather have sole power of a small state than see everyone united. They rather destroy shit than let things continue building. If constantinople never had plague or fallen (even as a small corrupt state), it would by far be the riches city in the world today
In this comment I wanted to emphasize the horror of the crusader raids in Istanbul/Constantinopole. You looked at it from a political point of view. Also, I don't understand why you want people to be united. People are made up of different races and tribes. Their religions, traditions and even food cultures are different. Therefore, they do not have a common goal and therefore it is only natural that they want to live by establishing small states. But when they occupy each other's land, they have to respect what the people of other cultures have built there and what is sacred. The plunder mentality, just like the crusaders, does not respect this and burns and even steals those holy ones. Unlike your opinion, I don't think countless rulers and states act with this looting mentality. If it were, the temple of Zeus in the ancient city of Aizanoi would have been destroyed long ago or you wouldn't be able to see the pyramids in Egypt and Sudan. Or you couldn't see the Ziggurats in Iraq and therefore you wouldn't know what great architects societies like the Sumerians and Babylonians were. I think it has to do with the intellectuality of these societies, and in the 10-12th centuries European societies were not intellectual enough and therefore thought ignorantly and cruelly. Or as an other example you can count the Mongols. Genghis Khan may have been a war genius, but he was too culturally ignorant and cruel. Ancient Mesopotamian cities such as Persepolis and Baghdad unfortunately suffered greatly from his cruelty, and the result is massive destruction and plunder.
This is so sad... It is like a quote from Silmarillion "But
of bliss and glad life there is little to be said, before it ends; as works fair and
wonderful, while still they endure for eyes to see, are their own record, and only
when they are in peril or broken for ever do they pass into song"
I've been following KnG back since 2015. Am so proud to see how this channel has grown and continues growing!
Greco Roman world destroyed and plundered from all sides and from within, is truly a tragedy.
Sounds like what happened to the Western Roman Empire as well. Stand united or fall divided
2:05, that was Liutprand mistake, he insulted Basileus by addresing his Emperor as King of the Romans while everyone knows even England in that time, Basileus was the real King of the Romans
Except that Liutprand was horribly insulted and mistreated long before that; he was likely using such language BECAUSE of his mistreatment.
@@stephenjenkins7971 he was a subhuman barbarian. He deserved the insults
@MrKILLINOOBZ Then I guess the Byzantines paid the price for their arrogance later. Congrats.
Gràcies!
This is incredible! I would love to have an even more detailed account of the events regarding the Byzantine empire around this time and the crusades in general.
historical perspective is so fascinating whatever book or video on history I read or watch I find myself rooting for someone or a side and then when I'm given the others sides story I root for them against those whom I originally supported. History is so marred in grey complexity I find it so enjoyable being shown both sides. Very rarely is one side overwhelming in the right.
True, though to prevent any bias, I tend to perceive the sides through a, through much effort, objective perspective.Historical nuances and intricacies make history quite a treat if I may say.
Bizantines are so relevant tô our western Society, but also so neglected in history teachings. Thank you for the vídeo! Great job!!
Because everyone hated them. The holy roman empire exists to mock it. Guess who writes their history? Pretenders to roman territories. They have 0 interest in legitimizing Rome ever again. In fear, call them Byzantine. And Greek leaders dont want to give up power either, they rather keep their weak ancient greek culture instead of letting the ruler of spain hold roman power because he has its paper rights.
I love how this chanel actually does Byzantine history stuff
Alexios inviting the crusaders is like when you invite a friend over you haven't seen in years, then you realize how much they've changed and that you actually can't stand them.
And at the end this dear friend burn your house and r.. your wife !
Crusades from western perspective: “Lerooooooy Jenkins!”
Crusades from muslim perspective: “WTF is that?!”
Crusades from Byzantine perspective: “(Chuckles) I’m in danger…”.
@@vitorpereira9515 It was more so about their political power than a need for money.
Philippe le Bel saw the Templar organisation as a state in the state which threatened the centralised monarchical power; the fact that they were rich and the wealth that was to be gained in dissolving the order was only a happy consequence of that.
Eastern Roman history, among other histories, is always a treat for me, given that I've been studying roman history for years now and so watching these vids Kings and Generals, again, among others is always refreshing, especially when looking at those attractive maps ;)
Pretty cool to see a different view of the Crusades, would love more of these types of videos!
This is seriously one of the greatest channels of all time
You guys always make amazing content. Keep it up.
You fail to mention at the beginning that the wrath and treatment (even short imprisonment) by the rough and soldier like Nicephoros Phokas of Liutprand of Cremona was instigated by the latter's addressing the Emperor(Basileus) as Emperor of the Greeks and not with his proper title as Emperor of the Romans.
To be fair, he was treated rough from the Start. But that’s also because he was a diplomat of the HRE who was at War with them and a turncoat from the Kingdom of Italy, Byzantium’s ally destroyed by Otto.
And to be fair the HRE had the balls to send a diplomat making demands when the Byzantines were beating that Holy Roman Ass in a war they didn’t start.
As a Greek, this kind of topics break my heart 💔
Heck, I'm Swedish and I think the slow, torturous decline and fall of Byzantium is one of the saddest points in European history...
@@SwedishSinologyNerd On the other hand, it lasted a thousand years. That is a kind of stability other nations dream of, even if there was slow decline.
One day we'll all pray together in the Hagia Sophia
You mean as eastrean roman *
Greek proverb "You get used to the cold" Thank you Atatürk, he taught you how to swim.
8:43 “he had the difficult task of filling his fathers shoes and restoring balance to the empire”
Ah yes my favorite line from Star Wars.
I'm no history expert but I have a weird feeling that the Byzantines had a negative view on the fourth crusade.
Of every crusade since the first .... they were supportive of it at the start but they witnessed many cases of looting which prompted them to despise the crusaders however political leaders didn't hate it untill things went south with Antioch
@@obaidaserdar1780 Yeah the First Crusade had the full support of the Byzantine army and navy with both in unison until Antioch. People forget Byzantine officials and Guides were with the Crusaders.
Everything went to shit when that Deserter misled Alexios.
@@tylerellis9097 they had the support of the leadership not the peasants ...the peasants were very supportive at the start but as soon as the soldiers started abusing the land they are passing by the people of eastern empire detested them
You have to understand that crusaders thought of eastern Christians as heretics and Latinised their churches or destroyed it and massacred many of them ... something caused many eastern Christians to fight to the side of Muslims
@@obaidaserdar1780 There is no recorded massacres of an Orthodox Town in the first Crusade, the crusader army was trailed by a Byzantine one when it went through Byzantine territory. One town was by Massacred by Bohemond when he went off course but it was a Paulican Town which the Catholics actually considered Heretics. Same with the 2nd no Orthodox towns were massacred.
We also know Native townsmen tried to swindle the Crusaders. Byzantine sources tell Manuel In the 2nd told his governors to inflate grain prices when the Crusaders arrived in Bulgaria. Their pillaging wasn’t always unjustified.
There was no widespread persecution and harassment Of Orthodoxs by Catholics until after the 4th Crusade. Orthodox Greek Churches in Italy were allowed to operate in Greek with no persecution from the Normans or Church until the 1200s.
There was mistrust and cultural differences between the sides but it wasn’t due to their faiths yet. Hungary and Croatia also got pillaged by crossing Crusading Armies despite being Catholic.
The Third Crusade was a mess on both sides and Serbian/Bulgarian interaction flaring things up alongside Byzantine countermoves didn’t help.
And peasants aren’t the ones writing our sources. Educated Priests and Officals safe in Constantinople, Thessaloniki and other Urban walled Cities were.
@@tylerellis9097 the massacres I have mentioned was against the Levant Christians however records of peasants resentment exists in the Assyrian records of churches which is by the way does care about peasants not just rulers ...again yeah rulers weren't annoyed till fourth crusade but public opinion didn't support the crusades ....that opinion is eventually what led to the Byzantine power struggle to take place
More over the prices inflation is normal when armies pass an area with out proper rationing which was the lesson crusaders learned the hard way ...and it wasn't in anyway a justification for the acts in Hungary
fantastic work
I've been wondering about this. Excellent "historical detective" work.
Well done, another great video on another interesting piece of history!
Thanks, absolutely can't wait for more Crusader stuff!
Pope John Paul II during his visit to Athens 2001 apologize and ask for mercy to Greek Patriarch for Crusaders in 1204 "we turned against the brothers in Christ." sayd.
Pope Francis in Athens (2021) repeated this apology to the Greeks
Nice to see, I learnt a lot with this one again 👍
As always Excellent 👍👌
Fascinating stuff, thanks!
Tarihi anlatimlari cok seviyorum. Basiralirinizin devamini diliyorum🫡
Great video! 👏👏👏
Love this content!
Another amazing video from Kings & Generals! 😎⚔🙏
Love this channel! Best thing on youtube.
As always this is another great video from you
Ioannes Cinnamos' history (επιτομή ιστοριών) is an amazing work. From all the writers you have mentioned Cinnamos, in my oppinion, is better because he emphasizes to military issues instead of the court.
Fantastic video keep it up your doing amazing job
Thanks for the upload
Good video
Another wonderful video
Well Done!
Great series.
good one
Luitpuld was treated like that because they don’t recognise his empire as Rome or as Emperor of the Romans.
Very informative videos
18:12 Władysław III had an enormous potential as a ruler, and could've potentially taken Byznatium under his protection...
But of course he had to change the course of history by dying like the 20-year old idiot he was (says an 18 year old, none the wiser)
And would be so cool to see Hunyadi as the new king of Bulgaria. Ō all the missed opportunities…
Very good documentary 👍👍👍
I live in the city of Cologne in Germany. The city was founded by the Romans as Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis. During medieval times it was part of the holy Roman empire and the language was German. Here is a church that has the tomp of a Greek aristocratic lady. Her name is theophanu. She was sent from Constantinople to marry the German Kaiser they appreciated her as daughter of the advances and civilized roman empire and they hoped that that will give Legitimation to their empire
800 years and I'm still not over it. Why do I keep watching videos about 1204.
Because Rome still is the envy of the world. Even if we recreated it, we can never replace the networking and economy built over a thousand years that Constantinople had. Even then, they were weaker than during Antiquity where it afforded so many wonders that people are still in awe of today because they were united. Now we are run by weak leaders and separated as English, French, Italians, Libyans, Egyptians, Israeli, Syrians, Turks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Ukrainian, Greek, and more. We used to Roman and better for it.
Thanks for the information 👍🏻
Sounds like someone was pumping helium into your sound studio during this recording ;)
I see ERE on the map (not Byzantine Empire), I instantly hit like! Now, let’s watch) And yeah, thanks for the content, guys!
You are the best YT channel ever .. best of puck
I don't care what anyone says....its 2000 years of Roman history....Roman tragedy....
The Palaiologian period gave significant and wonderful art despite the bad condition of the empire
John Komnenus deserves a standalone video guys.
Totally agree, excellent Roman Emperor but was here between two more famous rulers.
These videos are beutifully crafted... very high quality!
napoleonic wars would be a good series if you were looking for another awsome series kings and generals
Does anyone know the background music starting at 6:30
I will always like and appreciate another point of view when it comes to history. And it seems to be that both the Byzantines and the Western Europeans were laboring under misconceptions and arrogance about the other in equal measure. Such things always lead to tragedy. And did. (Sack of Constantinople 4th Crusade).
Eight centuries had passed since the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, yet watching it all unfold still filled me with a deep sense of loss. I’m not even Greek or Christian, but as a young history student, I can hardly bear the weight of what was lost 😢
Huge fan of byzantine history. Already looking forward for the next episode!
I wonder if Constantinople would've been captured by the Turks had the relations between Byzantines and the West been good. As Will Durant said, no civilization is destroyed from outside until it has destroyed itself from inside.
Not a chance
Thank you , K&G .
🐺
This must be an example for reading history from all perspectives.Then you figure out what is happening.
Whoever read Byzantine history, will realize the issues of this region.
You should make a video about r/place showing the battles we took there.
Great video and I can't wait for next one! I am also glad to see in the last section of the video that Serbia is shown as the original owner of modern - day Kosovo. This further supports the well-known fact that Serbs were far greater majority in that region during middle ages and it was them who erected thousands of churches and monasteries that are still present today (some are under UNESCO protection).
I would like to see a video focusing on John II and Manuel I, the latter which I think you covered too harshly. He had many accomplishments during his reign and had the emperor had a strong succession it could have continued to be very successful. The treasury was not empty at the end of his reign as the Empire was collecting strong revenue more depleted would be correct.
-Decisive victory against Hungary Battle of Sirmium which consolidated Byzantine control of the Western Balkans
-The Egypt campaign failure is more on the crusader states than the Empire
-Battle of Myriocephalum was not very significant defeat more a morale defeat Byzantines crushed that same Turkish army a year later at the Battle of Hyelion and Leimocheir, in 1179 a strong peace was confirmed
-He handled the second crusade brilliantly.
-Broke the Venice Monopoly.
I would love to see this video too ! Manuel wasn't a bad emperor but in my opinion he distracted too much from the goal pursued carefully by his fater John (an amazing emperor from what i read), goal being : destroy piece by piece, strike by strike the seljuks realms. His rule wasn't bad, but he didn't prepare well the sucession with his young son on the throne, helped by his unpopular mother. He kept the power firmly but he needed a really strong heir to continue after his death. Myriocephalum is famous but indeed had 0 impact on Byzantine Power, it had more an impact on Manuel's health eventually. If Manuel had focused to totally destroy and reconquer Anatolia at the end of his rule, the Byzantines Empire would have been in a more comfortable situation to face the f.g th Crusade and its impacts.
@@alex3987654 agreed completely in fact in the 1160's had campaigned in Anatolia instead of wasting his time in Italy he would have taken Konya much easier since the Turks were not at all united by that point. But yes John II was a great ruler, had Manuel followed what his father did the history of Anatolia would be different. He should have left Bela as Heir or at least protector but yes it all makes for fascinating discussion.
A part of me hopes we have an equivalent to the bronze age collapse so we can go back to city-states. Would be so kino.
Please make a video about operation barborosa
Religious tourists are among the most lucrative,
but they must be kept from mischief, then and now.
Keep up the good work, and please do not stop calling them what they called themselves: Romans!
Noticed use some of the animations from other videos about constantinople before only like 2 or 3 but just thought id mention.
Unbelievable congratulations 👍
This Byzantine European Schism heavily infleunced the relations between the West and the Russian Empire in later centuries especially in the lead up to the Crimean War
Can you explain (romance of the three kingdoms) battle of hefei? no one has explained it even though it was a remarkable battle where 800 soldiers of wei beat back 100,000 soldiers of wu.
Battle of Myriokephalon please
Have you done an episode on Shaka Zulu? I always admired the story of a bastard born son hated from birth becoming a leader by his own right and uniting dozens of long warring tribes under his rule
Yeah they have not really touched the race for Africa or whatever the hell they call it .. oh scramble
The defeat at Myriokephalon was actually not that bad. The following year the Byzantines annihilated a Seljuk army that had invaded Byzantine territory.
True, but I think it did damage the Roman's offensive ability. Now they were for the most part on the defensive on the eastern frontier.
Yeah the Byzantines didn’t even lose any actual territory from it, people forget it was a Byzantine Offensive and that most of the army escaped.
This vid is an unjustified slaughter of Manuel imo that isn’t supported at all by Modern Byzantine Historians. He has his flaws but when you analyze all his campaigns, most of them ended benefiting the Empire in some way.
Not having a proper heir and the Komnenos system itself were the problems.
@@tylerellis9097 Sort of how Basil II left the empire without an heir led to the crisis in the late 11th century. The empire is strong when there is a strong dynasty with a guaranteed succession, when there isn't the wheels come off. The Macedonian and Komnenoi dynasties prove that rule I think.
@@ioannestheiberian3955 Especially True for the Komnenoi and beyond because as Paul Stephenson sums in his book Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, when you make the Throne and government based on the nobleness of your families blood, suddenly the entire extended family become valid candidates for the Throne. That’s why Andronikos took the Throne so easily where as during the Macedonian era he wouldn’t have even gotten close.
But during the Empire before the Komnenoi I wouldn’t necessarily say so. Dynastic ties weren’t required for high government positions and Kaldellis would argue didn’t significantly help preserve your Throne either. The position was seen as Noble but not the Family.
The Macedonian dynasty got subjected 3 times, by Romanos Lekapenos, Nikephoros Phocas and John Tzimeskes Kourkouas. 3 Emperors from different dynasties(2 out of the 3 considered Armenian) Yet all 3 are considered successful Emperors. They legitimized their rule by keeping the emperor as a junior puppet and establishing marriage ties while promoting their own families to the purple.
Yet their families were never venerated as Noble by the People or nobility. They and the Macedonian Emperor could be deposed. Even Basil II dealt with 3 civil wars. His Nieces were secured by his long successful near 50 year Reign
There was 50 years of non dynastic succession after Basil yet things only went to shit under Constantine Doukas. Constantine Monomachos, Romanos Agyos And Isaac Komnenos are all overall regarded as Competent Emperors yet ironically it was the Doukas dynasty who led the empire to its dire straights.
The Golden age of Byzantium was overall a mix of dynastic and non dynastic Emperors
From reading Kaldellis' book I got that both the non-dynastic emperors like Lekapenos, Phokas, and Tzimeskes got their legitimacy through being co-emperors with a Macedonian junior emperor. I think that this gave the Roman people a sense of assured continuation of a popular and successful dynasty and also giving competent and talented leaders the top position. Of course this is not by design but by an accident of history.
"The Catholic Constantine XI' - is this correct? Was under the impression he followed Orthodoxy but was willing to accept his churches subservience to the Latin rite.
09:20 how do the borders of Rum make any sense? I mean, how can a country be landlocked all over the place with such a narrow ring around it, not making any successful push to any shore so near? And, to approach the question from another angle, how is that ring defendable?
thank you
Check out a map of turkeys topography. You might find the answer there are mountain
Do we have crusades from crusaders perspective?
12:32 - 13:00 God damn, that's one list of failures
George Acropolitis resolves the depate about if Byxantines were Greeks or Romans. They where both.
There is no subject honestly, Eastern Roman Empire was alive during this time, Romans that's all. It's only jealous western historians during the XVII/XVIII who decided to name the empire Byzantium, because they didn't accept that the empire of Komnenos was the heir of Auguste.
@@alex3987654 The term Byzantine is ahistorical. But the Greek cultural identity of the empire along with its Roman political heritage is undisputed. Even ij modern times Greeks use the term "romios" aka Roman to selfidentify
@@MPOTSARIS20 George Acropolites said they were Graikoi (Greek-speakers) and Romans. However, if you read his work "Kata Latinos" the word Hellene is never used. It is a small detail but it makes a big difference. The "Byzantines" were Greek-speaking Romans, but not Hellenes. The ancient Hellenes worshiped demonic entities in the veiwpoint of the byzantine Romans, and thus were not Hellenes.
@@legioromanaxvii7644 The ancient Roman’s also worshiped those same gods seems you can’t under the differences between Roma and Rhomhaioi
@@alex3987654 You should stop with that ridiculous notion of jealousy.
No one in Europe in the XVIIth century was jealous of some long fallen greco-roman empire that was already a shadow of its former self since a millenia by the time it had fallen to the Ottomans.
Europeans only used the term "Byzantine" as a matter of convenience (since the Roman Empire was named after Rome, it was only logical that its Eastern counterpart, long removed from the City both culturally and geographically be named after its own capital, Byzantium).
Europeans by the XVIIth century were litteraly the rulers of the World, there was nothing above them but God, and the former Byzantine Empire was nothing more to them than a eastern curiosity from the Middle Ages. Not anything to fuel any amount of jealousy.
Could you expand on Constantine XI's battles before the Fall of Constantinople ?
There is an editing error at 1:19.
2:07 wasn’t it nikephoros 1st not the 2nd that insulted the germanic king?
Alexios Komnenos didn't commanded the crusading army but it was by a byzantine who had the same name. Alexios
Guys, what is Stephen of Blois doing on the map @14:37?
15:58 would appreciated if you would have a link of a mentioned video.
th-cam.com/video/u7_ewGVo65k/w-d-xo.html
Rüm is also where Mvlana Rumi gets his name