I think it would be fair to add that Alexios deeply regretted what happened. It was clearly not his intention to sack the city; he lost control of his troops. The city also quickly recovered from the sack and thrived extraordinarily under his rule.
I think Ana mentions that there was some kind of compensation made after to people who had lost their property. I also think alot of byzantine soldiers were not payed a regular wage but only promised that they can keep plunder they got on campaign. I think it's hard to criticize Alexios for this not only would it be no small feet to control a army that has just entered one of the richest cities in earth at the time but the amount of good his reign did for the empire. We could say if it wasnt Alexios it might have been the Turks a few years later.
This is why I love this channel. J. Steven is very fair in his explanations like about how the fourth Crusade was a horrific event that did the West no favors.
6:20 You're off on this one. The reason why we don't remember this sack is because it is not by far as horrific as the 4th crusade's sacking as well as the complete destruction by the Turks.
Εasy. Everything to whitewash western crusades. Remember orthodox are heretics, and heretics are worse than infidels. But the Pope "forgave" us in 1964 so any crime done against us is put under the carpet -"we can't really accuse them since we "forgave" them". Even in Hadigtonian view orthodox are something else to West not really enemy but not ally either.
@@PeristerygrI do not practice religion but lets be honest here there REAL herectics where the Catholic Popes and there fake christian institution, since the fall of the western roman empire the pope did everything to alienate the western chrristians from the church in Constantinopol and other dioceses like Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Just look when the the pope decided that a german barbarian can carry the name Roman Emperor while the east was fighting for its survival against arabs and slavs. They even made a fake document to prove that Constantine left the western roman empire as heritage to the pope!.
@@marcelcostache2504 seems somebody has a bone to pick here :) let it go already. it's hundreds of years ago. how exactly does this impact you may i ask?
@@marcelcostache2504 as far as "western barbarian" having the title roman emperor - why not? the pope has the power to crown anybody emperor. and frankly if you look at the line of western roman emperors many were from the ranks of the common folk. quite a lot of them come from far away. so why not crown an outsider? they did that during the height of the roman empire all the time.
I think it would be interesting if you started making videos on more historical books like these. I'm trying to get through this book right now and this really helped me understand it tremendously. Great video!! Thank you
Such a great channel JSR! For my lack of financial support I have recommended, shared, cited, and will continue to send as many people as I possible to see your growing body of work. As much as you need us, we need you more! Keep it up. Cheers!
Thanks for the help! It means a lot. If you want to do something else, leave a positive review of my book Why Does the Heathen Rage? Thanks! www.amazon.com/Why-Does-Heathen-Rage-Crusades/dp/152395762X
I think the most catastrophic event made by the Byzantines themselves on Constantinople was probably the Nika riot , although this was centuries before the time of Alexius I .
if you have read alexiad then you should have more respect for him and his achievments against the turks the petchenegs and the normans .. not to mention the early civil wars.. he fought against so many enemies with little to no army and not only managed to survive against overwhelming forces but he also won!! he was a military genius of the middle ages and if he was given a healthy empire he probably would have brought the empire at the status of the justinian the first. few leaders in history fought for over 30 years against the best armies of their time and managed to survive for so long..
@@geo3336 lmaoo like when? Bari? Dyrrhachium? Or when alexios had to welcome bohemond 1 in his castle and alexios daughter wrote love letters admiring over bohemond😂
@@geo3336 siege of antioch u talking of ONLY happened because of byzantines incompetency, Some frank knight running away from battle of lake of antioch told alexios that bohemond had already lost the battle when alexios was coming with help he promised. Frank coward was runner and bohemond actually won that 700 vs 12k but alexios help never showed up because frank convinced him and alexios didnt wanna risk more of his men if bohemond had alrdy lost, This created tension because bohemomd felt betrayed when he needed alexios the most and alexios knew he was at fault since he believed a coward frank
Good video, this entire event was omitted from the History of the crusades Volume 1, at least as far as i remember. I would say one thing though, or one question , as far as i know he was forced to rebel by the current emperor and given the state of Byzantine armies at the time they were most likely mercenaries or very poorly trained militias. Which were probably not easy to control once the lust to pillage and loot got into their veins. Which would make me rather think Alexios just lost complete and utter control more so than unleashed a horde on Constantinople.
You're quite right that historians generally neglect this sack. I wonder how much of the ancient literature supposedly destroyed in 1204 actually perished then.
Alexios Komnenos was probably one of the worst things that could happen to the eastern roman empire. he pretty much dismantled the state aparatus and based everything on family control - essentially an absolute monarchy controlled by a family. he set the stage for all the instability in internal power struggles often within the same families and the failure of the eastern romans to maintain their state functions properly.
That's very interesting, he's often viewed as the empire's savior after the disaster of 1071. But it is true that after Manuel's death in 1180, the empire seemed to collapse almost immediately.
@@YesDudeNoMan Many hadigtonian westerns don't realy like orthodox people (east slavs and balckanians) as we are considered aliens and heretics, yet not official enemies(like islam) since the reconsiliation of 1964. Meaning they don't really hate us but they still look down on us and consider orthodox as inferior.
if you have read alexiad then you should have more respect for him and his achievments against the turks the petchenegs and the normans .. not to mention the early civil wars.. he fought against so many enemies with little to no army and not only managed to survive against overwhelming forces but he also won!! he was a military genius of the middle ages and if he was given a healthy empire he probably would have brought the empire at the status of the justinian the first. few leaders in history fought for over 30 years against the best armies of their time and managed to survive for so long..
but he dismantled the roman state aparatus. essentially converting it to a simple absolute monarchy - family based rule. setting the stage for further destabilization.
I think it would be fair to add that Alexios deeply regretted what happened. It was clearly not his intention to sack the city; he lost control of his troops. The city also quickly recovered from the sack and thrived extraordinarily under his rule.
Rogerrramjet1
Then why is the ensuing period known as the "Komnenian Restoration"?
BS....the troops were under his control
to me it sound like Alexios didn't order the sack of Consatantinople. He just couldn't stop his soldiers. Tell me if i'm wrong
I think Ana mentions that there was some kind of compensation made after to people who had lost their property. I also think alot of byzantine soldiers were not payed a regular wage but only promised that they can keep plunder they got on campaign. I think it's hard to criticize Alexios for this not only would it be no small feet to control a army that has just entered one of the richest cities in earth at the time but the amount of good his reign did for the empire. We could say if it wasnt Alexios it might have been the Turks a few years later.
If the Byzantines spent less time dealing with internal disasters, the empire would probably still be here today.
Couldn’t that be argued for any empire?
This is why I love this channel. J. Steven is very fair in his explanations like about how the fourth Crusade was a horrific event that did the West no favors.
6:20 You're off on this one. The reason why we don't remember this sack is because it is not by far as horrific as the 4th crusade's sacking as well as the complete destruction by the Turks.
how's that "sack" comes any close to the sack of 1453 or the one of the fourth crusade?
Εasy. Everything to whitewash western crusades. Remember orthodox are heretics, and heretics are worse than infidels. But the Pope "forgave" us in 1964 so any crime done against us is put under the carpet -"we can't really accuse them since we "forgave" them". Even in Hadigtonian view orthodox are something else to West not really enemy but not ally either.
@@PeristerygrI do not practice religion but lets be honest here there REAL herectics where the Catholic Popes and there fake christian institution, since the fall of the western roman empire the pope did everything to alienate the western chrristians from the church in Constantinopol and other dioceses like Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.
Just look when the the pope decided that a german barbarian can carry the name Roman Emperor while the east was fighting for its survival against arabs and slavs.
They even made a fake document to prove that Constantine left the western roman empire as heritage to the pope!.
@@marcelcostache2504 seems somebody has a bone to pick here :)
let it go already. it's hundreds of years ago. how exactly does this impact you may i ask?
@Catch_Me_If_You_Can how?
@@marcelcostache2504 as far as "western barbarian" having the title roman emperor - why not? the pope has the power to crown anybody emperor. and frankly if you look at the line of western roman emperors many were from the ranks of the common folk. quite a lot of them come from far away. so why not crown an outsider? they did that during the height of the roman empire all the time.
I think it would be interesting if you started making videos on more historical books like these. I'm trying to get through this book right now and this really helped me understand it tremendously. Great video!! Thank you
sacking a city is not a big deal, destroying a city during a sack is a completely different thing...
Such a great channel JSR! For my lack of financial support I have recommended, shared, cited, and will continue to send as many people as I possible to see your growing body of work. As much as you need us, we need you more! Keep it up. Cheers!
Thanks for the help! It means a lot. If you want to do something else, leave a positive review of my book Why Does the Heathen Rage? Thanks! www.amazon.com/Why-Does-Heathen-Rage-Crusades/dp/152395762X
I think the most catastrophic event made by the Byzantines themselves on Constantinople was probably the Nika riot , although this was centuries before the time of Alexius I .
if you have read alexiad then you should have more respect for him and his achievments against the turks the petchenegs and the normans .. not to mention the early civil wars.. he fought against so many enemies with little to no army and not only managed to survive against overwhelming forces but he also won!! he was a military genius of the middle ages and if he was given a healthy empire he probably would have brought the empire at the status of the justinian the first. few leaders in history fought for over 30 years against the best armies of their time and managed to survive for so long..
He was an orthodox and to West nationalists like him orthodox are aliens not an enemy but not a friend either.
Against normans? Lol normans whooped him left and right 😂
@@bruhmcchaddeus413 not true given the resources he had he bested them in many occasions
@@geo3336 lmaoo like when? Bari? Dyrrhachium? Or when alexios had to welcome bohemond 1 in his castle and alexios daughter wrote love letters admiring over bohemond😂
@@geo3336 siege of antioch u talking of ONLY happened because of byzantines incompetency, Some frank knight running away from battle of lake of antioch told alexios that bohemond had already lost the battle when alexios was coming with help he promised. Frank coward was runner and bohemond actually won that 700 vs 12k but alexios help never showed up because frank convinced him and alexios didnt wanna risk more of his men if bohemond had alrdy lost, This created tension because bohemomd felt betrayed when he needed alexios the most and alexios knew he was at fault since he believed a coward frank
Without Crusaders, guess who would have Saladin defeated 300 years earlier.
Great video, very interesting. Keep up the good work!
Good video, this entire event was omitted from the History of the crusades Volume 1, at least as far as i remember. I would say one thing though, or one question , as far as i know he was forced to rebel by the current emperor and given the state of Byzantine armies at the time they were most likely mercenaries or very poorly trained militias. Which were probably not easy to control once the lust to pillage and loot got into their veins. Which would make me rather think Alexios just lost complete and utter control more so than unleashed a horde on Constantinople.
You're quite right that historians generally neglect this sack. I wonder how much of the ancient literature supposedly destroyed in 1204 actually perished then.
I can't understand please explain
lies.....western bullshits
eye of lion OK thx
Alexios Komnenos was probably one of the worst things that could happen to the eastern roman empire. he pretty much dismantled the state aparatus and based everything on family control - essentially an absolute monarchy controlled by a family. he set the stage for all the instability in internal power struggles often within the same families and the failure of the eastern romans to maintain their state functions properly.
That's very interesting, he's often viewed as the empire's savior after the disaster of 1071. But it is true that after Manuel's death in 1180, the empire seemed to collapse almost immediately.
Why sack your own empire.
Because you are a barbarian bloodthirsty savage -since you are not western european catholic! ;)
Grigoris Karelis, Oy vey
Love your response. God bless Western Catholic Europe!
Grigoris Karelis OK you are a troll anyway
@@YesDudeNoMan Many hadigtonian westerns don't realy like orthodox people (east slavs and balckanians) as we are considered aliens and heretics, yet not official enemies(like islam) since the reconsiliation of 1964. Meaning they don't really hate us but they still look down on us and consider orthodox as inferior.
Just disgraceful video!
Nothing to do with the truth!
This video is nonsense.
if you have read alexiad then you should have more respect for him and his achievments against the turks the petchenegs and the normans .. not to mention the early civil wars.. he fought against so many enemies with little to no army and not only managed to survive against overwhelming forces but he also won!! he was a military genius of the middle ages and if he was given a healthy empire he probably would have brought the empire at the status of the justinian the first. few leaders in history fought for over 30 years against the best armies of their time and managed to survive for so long..
but he dismantled the roman state aparatus. essentially converting it to a simple absolute monarchy - family based rule. setting the stage for further destabilization.