Good work, mentioning Emperor Constantine XI Dragas Paleiologos was a nice touch. At that point it was too late for Byzantium but he was wise ruler and brave one as he died in the battle like common soldier or citizen defending his great city of Constantinople on that last day in May 1453. He is a Saint for all Hellenes and Serbs (his mother was Serbian). May his soul rest in peace because he is already in heaven by his deeds.
Nina Rachinska İSTANBUL= İSLAMBOL ALHAMDULLİAH 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷 We in true way , so Allah give Victory to Turks🇹🇷 We are sword of Allah ❤️ Soldier of Mustapha Kemal Pasha and Mehmed the conqueror of unconqueroble city 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
Islam isnt a religion of peace and killed the greatest nation the world ever seen because you had an ego problem combined with the lowest iq in the world problem.
Is there any Christian who's obsessed with Byzantium and the history of Christendom/Christianity in general, who would like to help me create an animation project about the history of Christendom/Christianity (Battle of Tours, Battle of Covadonga, Battle of Nineveh)? Movies/animes about Heraclius, Charlemagne, and many other heroes of Christendom... My discord is: Proletariado#4420 Will you please add me, my brother?
also the palaiologean dynasty had some nice emperors. they just dont had any achievements since the empire was on a absolute downfall after the 4th crusade
Nai re mounaki .enas apotuximenos ,adahs ,pornos kai oute allo exei katagrapsei h istoria afise enan ellinismo na svisi.mallon h apopsi sou einai entelos lathos ..prepei na legese adieksodo ellinon.
Ρε αρχίδι τράβα μάθε ιστορία. Μόνος του γάμησε Φράγκους και τούρκους στην Πελοπόννησο. Και έπεσε σαν ήρωας πολεμώντας για την Πόλη. Μήπως τον μπερδεύεις με τον μπάσταρδο θεοδόσιο που προσπάθησε να αφανίσει τον ελληνισμό; Ή με τον ομοφυλόφιλο Γεννάδιο; Μάλλον δεν είσαι Έλληνας, αλλά τούρκος ή Πέρσης, όταν δεν αναγνωρίζεις αγνούς Έλληνες αγωνιστές σαν τον Κωνσταντίνο Παλαιολόγο.
Hehehehe kalo einai na doksazeis httimenous dimarxous dioti peri dimarxio prokeitai me tin ektasei ghs pou kateixe h legomeni autokratoria sas .. Mallon esu ekprosopeis tourkous praktores otan prospatheis na mou peraseis propanganda htimenon dimarxon?? Giati den ekpedeueis to mualo mou se autokratores nikites?
@@ninarachinska139 Ben katılmıyorum Eğer İstanbul Fetih edilmesiydi Avrupa Bugün ku konunumuna gelemezdi Amerika kıtası keşif edilmezdi Ticaret yolları bulunmazdı ilim bilim ve Teknikte Avrupa ileri gidemezdi
don't you think it's a shame that byzantium is not that mainstream? there are 50 movies of henry viii and how many of..... heraclius for example? my discord: Proletariado#4420
Nicephorus Phocas LIBERATED Crete and Cyprus. Both islands were Byzantine and solidly Greek and had been captured by Arabs until Nicephorus restored them to Byzantium.
it is both greek and roman .... greek culture and language + roman identety and state system= eastern roman empire... and btw romans were originally also greek who emigrated froma sia minor to italy!
So many fucktards believe the Eastern Roman Empire to be a Greek one Jesus weren't you guys conquered forever by the Western Roman Empire. So you have a melting pot of all these different nationalities making up the Eastern Roman empire and all consider themselves Romans but due to that idiot Justin II feeling more comfortable speaking Greek it sticks. Thanks to that dbag Gibbon terming the Eastern Roman empire the Byzantine empire from that German (who fucking cares what his name is) in the 15th century. If you want to get technical wasn't majority of the general's and a few emperor's Armenian, more then Greek ones? #fact Lastly the smartest Greek man alive to quote is Kaldellis, "Byzantines" were not a bunch of Greeks who thought themselves "Romans", but a bunch of Romans who happened to speak Greek.
Βασίλειος ο Βουλγαροκτόνος. Αν ο διάδοχος του είχε την ίδια πυγμή και σοφία του, η Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία θα συνέχιζε, την λαμπρή πορεία της, μέχρι σήμερα.
Ευτυχώς που ψόφησε η φασίστικη Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία, γιατί αλλιώς δεν θα ήμασταν πλέον Έλληνες. Θα λεγόμασταν σήμερα Ρωμιοί (Εβραίοι ντυμένοι Ρωμαίοι, όπως ακριβώς και οι Ντονμέδες και οι Μπολσεβικοί) και θα ήμασταν Χριστιανοί. Τώρα πλέον αποκαλύφθηκαν οι αντιφάσεις αυτής της φασίστικης αυτοκρατορίας. Και για να καταλάβεις πόσο φασίστικη ήταν, παρομοίασε την με την Ναζίστικη Αυτοκρατορία.
Σου έδωσα το δικαίωμα να μιλάς έτσι; Αν έχεις απωθημένα πηγαίνε να τα πεις αλλού. Ο φασίστας και ο ρατσιστής φάνηκε με τον τρόπο που μίλησες. Είχα θύματα στην οικογένεια μου στον πόλεμο του '40 και την κατοχή από τους ναζί γερμανούς , ιταλούς φασίστες και προδότες γραικύλους. Εδώ είναι χώρος επιστήμης και όχι για κυρήγματα.
The greatest Byzantine emperor by fa,r was John Comnenus. He had to fight the worst enemies all around the empire and by intelligent strategy, diplomacy and warfare he managed not only to maintain but to expand the Empire. He also was extremely humane (people called him "Kaloyiannis" meaning "good John"), because he protected the poor against the rich local lords and he practically abolished the death penalty. Also never persecuted his adversaries and lived in austerity as a simple man. What a guy!
F. Nikol not at all. Basil made many wise laws which made the empire very strong. Also Basil built churches and many public buildings and was the first socialist emperor who fought against the land owner noble class and helped the poor. He was undoubtedly the best Byzantine emperor
Yes but he was totally brutal. You know the story about the 15.000 Bulgarians... That was evil and brutal even for the medieval times and not pious at all to say the least...
F. Nikol I know the story but it wasn't illegal. Bulgarians revolted against the Byzantines and the penalty was blinding. Basil put the law in effect. In a war everything is possible and this even if you don't believe it was the best way to hurt the Bulgarian prestige. This tactic is very effective against the enemy. And because he did it doesn't mean that Basil was awful but he was a great emperor, the greatest. it is confirmed by history
What a nutty remark of abject ignorance -- the last official vestige of that empire is the bloody, pagan idol-worshipping cult known as the Vatican today. Yes, Satan's pagan church will be revived to become greater before God destroys it for good.
are you sure basil ii conquered so much land as you show in 8.38??never saw thie picture before. only the map with the border from south italy to all anatolia plus all the balkans
greco greconia about the conquests of Basil II please check the description for no misconception. The conquests in this map aren't analysed because I didn't separated the imperial lands from the vassals-lands under Basils control and I will post a video about the conquests of Basil II analysing any detail with historical proofs
@@thegamingguytgg6993 yeah, he was the first Christian emperor, but he did not make it the official Roman religion. However he did build 2 major churches and legalized Christianity, he also gave favorable positions to Christians.
Yea he's a monster he put pagans through the same things early christians went through only difference were that pagans made up 90% of the empire and I one day he killed more pagans than christians that ever died under romes heel
John III Doukas Vatatzes definitely deserves to be included in this list. He was by far the most succesful emperor in the post fourth crusade era both in terms of achievements and personality-appeal to the population. I wonder if you purposely decided to include only the emperors who ruled with Constantinople as their capital thus excluding the consideration of any of the emperors of the Laskarides dynasty.
Justanian is the best in most peoples opinion maybe becuase he, you know... ALMOST RESTORED THE WHOLE ROMAN EMPIRE AND CONQUERED MORE THAN THE ROMANS DID IN 300 YEARS?
Could Be Anybody Justinian was a great emperor but he doesn't deserve to be number one because he was responsible for bankrupting the empire by wasting a lot of money to build useless fortifications on the river Danube which were easily destroyed by the Slavs some years later. Also he was responsible for spending a lot of money to extravagant campaigns against the barbarians also he gave a lot of money to the sassanids in order to make peace and imposed heavy taxes to his people. When he died he left the Byzantine treasury empty and many enemies were threatening the empire. On the other hand Basil ll the bulgarslayer was a real reformer. He improved the empire's production and trade and imposed heavy taxes to the aristocracy (Δυνατοί) and made laws which helped the poor people weakening the aristocracy by taking from them lands which were previously owned by farmers and forced them to return them back. Also Basil fought in the frontline in every battle and he won 2 civil wars against the Byzantine elite and beat all major superpowers in a 3 front war. He was the one who reconquered the Balkans and eliminated the Bulgarian empire which was a strong kingdom threatening the empire. He also destroyed the arabs at Syria and Antarados and in the second battle of apameia and conquered the Armenians the Georgians and the lands of today Azerbaijan. He forced the arabs to be States under Byzantine influence like vassals. Also he repelled and christianized the Russians and repelled the massive armies of the holy Roman empire twice reaching Rome which became vassal to the emperor who controlled the Papal throne. The annual income of the empire under Basil ll was 90 TONS of gold. He made the Hellenic Byzantine Empire the strongest power in the known world. When he died in 1025 ad he left the empire with many financial resources making the empire the richest in the world. Justinian never did such a thing. He never commanded an army or fought in a battle. Of course he made magnificent structures but Basil II was the one who fortified the economic centres and built magnificent defences. Both of them did many good things but the emperor who deserves to be the greatest is Basil ll he was a military political and economic genius. That's not my opinion only that's the real historical facts. Hope I covered you ☺
Justinian was a complete moron. He caused vast amounts of damage in the former Roman west because he was more determined to indulge in his paranoia and undercut loyal generals like Belisarius than he was with actually doing anything of use. He barely ever gave them enough resources or men that he could easily spare which left the western provinces wide open to invasion. The money he used to pay off the Persians could've easily been used to field an army to drive them out. If he had left Belisarius in Italy and used Narses in the east he could've had his place in history as something more than a monster who was so hated and unpopular his own subjects rose up against him. If it hadn't been for Justinian doing that Narses and Belisarius could've not only routed the Ostrogothic forces in Italy but also stopped and repelled the Lombards. As it was, the damage done by Justinian left Italy open to the eventual invasion and conquest of the Italian penninsula by the Lombards, who may not have had the manpower to defeat a well-supplied and funded Byzantine army if the job of defeating the Ostrogoths had been done properly. Instead, the remaining Ostrogothic forces remaining after the defeat of Totila eventually joined the Lombard invasion. And not only that but Justinian's tight-fistedness caused a revolt in the newly re-conquered Africa province taken from the Vandals. And not long after that even that province fell to the Arabic forces and eventually the Berbers. Justinian's reign should be remembered as a warning of how enormous sums of money and extensive manpower can be completely mishandled by a fool too far removed from the populace and reality and who suffered from severe paranoia and jealousy because he could not command or trust in Belisarius who was probably the most loyal Roman general since Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo.
He did that by bankrupting the empire. To the contrary Basil gave the empire with good funds. Also Basil came at a critical time when the empire had ultra rich-oligarchs and ultra poor people ( this divide was one of the reasons the empire fell) and fought hard the aristocrat-oligarchs and made the divide between ultra rich and ultra poor smaller. ( the ultra rich aristocrats and oligarchs hated him, and he actually ate together with the army at army meals ) After him the situation started going out of control again at an accellerating pace.
@@craigstevenson5152 Justinian couldn’t afford to have a sizeable army in Italy and against the Sassanids. Had he completely focused on one enemy, he’d have been obliterated in battle. And while he could’ve better managed the vast sum of resources he’d had at the start of his reign, he had to deal with the plague dealing a considerable blow to a population that was now paying more taxes because of his conquests. Had the plague struck before the Italian campaign, Justinian could have used his bank account to lessen the blow the plague had on the population. But the plague managed to strike at a time when the empire was managing a war while still having a huge enemy to guard against.
@MISERICORDI A is Greek history this "Eastern Roman". The whole Europe called them Greeks back then and later find this "Byzantine" term. as holy Roman is German history.
Some other honourable mentions would be Leo the Isaurian, Constantine IV, Theodosius the Great, Plus the great administrator emperors of the fifth century, Marcian, Leo, Zeno and Anastasius who did much to bequeath a full treasury. Maurice is interesting too. He ultimately failed, and his work, the restoration of the Danube frontier was to be undone by the usurpation of Phocas, the Sassanid war and the invasions and raids on two fronts of the Arabs and the Slavs, Avars and Bulgars from the north. But had his work succeeded and had he not being deposed the empire might have maintained the urban society of late antiquity, the Danube frontier and curtailed the Islamic century of conquest. Had he done these things the world would be very different from what it is today.
No.If the successors of Basil II were as good as him,Byzantium would be something like what USA is today,in terms of army,economy and power.Ottomans were just an enemy,like other enemies of byzantium that got repelled (when the empire was powerful enough),such as the bulgars,the Arabs,the Normans etc.Also,westerners and especially the Venetians gave a big response for the falling of the empire
Byzantium reborn again in this modern age as Russia declared Moscow as new Konstantinople and Russia will make "New Modern of Byzantium" glory again meanwhile Jesus Son of Mary will govern that Empire to spreading peace and justice around the world
ON THE NATURE OF THE BYZANTINES THE NIKA RIOTS. "NIKA" actually is the imperative form of the Greek verb ΝΙΚΩ (to win) and proves that the crowd at that time spoke Greek. "Win! Win!" is the shout we could hear today in a modern hippodrome full of English-speakers. "Vinci! Vinci!" it would be the cry of a Latin-speaking crowd. But at the 6th century AD, the Eastern Empire was totally hellenized and the crowd shouted "NIKA! NIKA!"; that is "win!" in Greek. This is also the case with the most illustrious buildings in the capital. HIPPODROME was the official name of Constantinople's race track (meaning "horse-track" in Greek) and not CIRCUS, its Latin counterpart. As we can further see in 2mins30secs of this video, all parts of the Hippodrome have also Greek names. SPHENDONE is called the far end and means "slinger" in Greek (because its form resembles a slinger pocket) and KATHISMA ("seat" in Greek) is the name of the Emperor's throne. Furthermore, the most iconic building of Constantinople - the Hagia Sophia cathedral - has its name in Greek (literally meaning "Holy Wisdom" and consequently God's Wisdom). Sophia and Sophy is a common female name today; it means exactly that: Wisdom. A variety of words also exists using the prefix "sopho-" (Greek for wisdom): Sophomore, sophist, Sophocles etc. If Hagia Sophia was built by Romans she would be named "Santa Sapienza" or something like that. THE GREEK LANGUAGE DURING THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE It is not a chance that about 4 decades after the Nika riots, Emperor Mavrikios aknowledged exactly that fact: That the people of the Byzantine Empire were not speaking Latin at all; so he decreed that all official documents were to be issued in both Latin (to mantain continuity with the old Roman Empire) and Greek "because this is the language of the people". In the same direction, Emperor Heracleios decreed 20 years later, that all official documents should be issued exclusively in Greek and not in both Greek and Latin "because the people doesn't speak it (the Latin) any more". Indeed, there are no recorded official documents in Latin since 610 (10 years after his decree). This process however (i.e. the bilingual issue of the imperial decrees) had begun centuries earlier. For example the famous "Edict of maximum prices" of Emperor Diocletian was carved in Latin to the west and in Greek to the east. The year was 301 AD. (Both stones have been recovered today). ROMAN CONQUEST OF GREECE The conquest of the then Greek world (modern Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt etc.) by the Romans was a gradual process that lasted about three centuries. It was a copmplex approach in order to succumb all the kingdoms of the Diadochoi (Alexander the Great's successors) by the famous Roman policy of "freedom of Greece". It was not a process that lasted a lone decisive battle or a single war. After that process was completed, around the begining of the first century AD, a new reality emmerged: A unified Roman world with two cultural components: One Latin-speaking in the Western Empire and another Greek-speaking in the Eastern part. Most Roman aristocrats at the time spoke Greek too. This fact was recognized (amongst others) by famous Roman poet and philosopher Horace in his Epistles, book II, epistle I, line 63: “Graecia capta ferum victorem capot et arts intuit agrestic Latino”. (Conquered Greece took captive her savage conqueror and brought her arts into rustic Latium). FROM ROME TO BYZANTION For that reason, when in 330 AD Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (a Romanised Illyrian-Greek) transferred the Imperial capital from Rome to a prosperous Greek settlement named Byzantion (founded by Greek king Byzas almost a millennium before) he knew he was entering a territory that everyone were speaking Greek and had virtually no natural Latin-speakers. That's why historians (since 15th century AD) begun calling the Constantinople-centered Empire "Byzantine" and not "Roman": Because, especially after the fall of Rome to the Germanic tribes (476 AD) nothing "Roman" or "Latin" was left into it. For that reason, modern linguistics also adopt this thesis. The language of that era is classified as "Constantinopolitan Greek" and not as "Constantinopolitan Latin". The term "Byzantine-Greeks" is also coined to describe the dominant ethnicity of the Byzantine Empire. THE TIME MACHINE If, using a time machine, a modern person had travelled to the Byzantine Empire and had asked a Byzantine-Greek the question "What are you?" he would have received one of the two following answers: 1. If this was a citizen of the Capital, he would have gotten the answer "ΠΟΛΙΤΗΣ/POLITES" short form in Greek of the word "Constantinopolitan" (CONSTANTINOPOLITES). 2. But if the Byzantine was coming from anywhere else in the empire, he would have said: "Eemae Romios" ("I'm a Roman" in Greek). If that time traveler had gone to a medieval European middle-class citizen and pointing towards a Byzantine-Greek had asked the former: "Who is he?" the European would have easily replied "This is a Greek". If the same time traveller comes to modern Greece and asks randomly a Greek "Eesae Romios?" (“Are you Roman?” In Greek) he will get the stunning answer "Yes!". If furthermore he asks a modern Greek from Instabul (modern Constantinople) “Eesae Politis?” he will also get the same positive answer as 1500 years ago. ROMANIANS OR GERMANS ARE ROMANS? So, are modern Greeks Romans? Of course not. As modern Romanians are not Roman just because they still run a country named “Romania”. As modern Germans are not Romans too, just because their medieval empire was named for a thousand years “Holy ROMAN Empire”. One’s true nature is not determined by how he calls himself; but instead by objective elements. I may call myself a neurosurgeon but just this does not make me one. Mycenaean-Greeks never call themselves “Greeks”. But everyone in the world today agrees that the army that Agamemnon landed on Troy were Greeks. RUMS AND ROMIOI MEANING CHRISTIANS, NOT ROMANS At the early stages of the Byzantine Empire, when Christianity was spreading, the demonym HELLENES was reserved only to pagan Greeks in order to distinguish them from ROMIOI who were the "Christian Greeks". When gradualy all Greeks became Christians and Rome was lost from the Empire, that distinction became meaningless and the term ROMIOI became a descriptive demonym for all Greeks that lasts untill today. In fact, Rum (Romans) was the word that also medieval Arabs used for Christians, not Romans. CONCLUSION For all the above reasons and in order to lift the confusion of the true essence of the Byzantine-Greeks, modern historians still call them Byzantines or Byzantine-Greeks but never Romans. The demise of Rome (that at the time of its conquest by the Goths was a shrinking city of 50 thousand) and the contemporaneous growth of the Greek east (note: in the same era Constantinople - formerly known as Byzantion - was a thriving Greek city heading towards its first million in population) led historians to this shift of name: Because all the imperial decisions were not anymore made in Latin Rome but in Greek Byzantion (Constantinople). NON CONSTANTINOPOLITAN BYZANTINES WERE USING THE DEMONYM “ROMIOI” FOR POLITICAL (SUCCESSION LINE) AND RELIGIOUS REASONS, WHILE EVERYONE ELSE IN EUROPE WERE CALLING THEM “GREEKS” AND THEIR KINGDOM “GREEK EMPIRE”! SO, IT IS AN IMPORTANT ERROR TO CALL “ROMANS” THE BYZANTION-CENTERED EMPIRE WHO SPOKE GREEK AND HAD GREEK ANCHESTRY. THIS NAME SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR THE ROME-CENTERED EMPIRE WHO SPOKE LATIN AND HAD LATIN ANCHESTRY. THANKS FOR READING.-
Finally a true rational person who knows about history, I'm amazed of your knowledge sir.Those arrogant fools who gain knowledge from sites that are full of propaganda and trying to "poison" other people's minds who lack knowledge of the history ,i hope they'll learn their lesson
Most of the video was pretty good... but I had to leave a dislike, the map at 8:36 is just so stupidly wrong. I have no idea where you got it, but Basil II NEVER conquered Persia, not to mention north africa, egypt, the caucuses, and arabia... NO! He conquered NONE OF THAT! I agree that he was the best Byzantine Emperor, but at his death the empire controlled the Balkans, Anatolia, and some of Southern Italy... the rest of the map s completely wrong. He certainly never conquered Rome, Spain, North Africa, Egypt, Arabia, Persia, Mesopotamia, or the Caucuses or the Crimea.
just a minute man 1025 AD The Eastern Roman Empire did not had the Arabian peninsula,the Mesopotamia,the Egypt,The Levant and the Entire Northern Africa and Italy...he just created a very influential army and "obliterated" the step Bulgarians...(about the tax income... that's legit)
george haralampous read the description. Based on many historians such as schlumberger the Byzantine empire had its imperial land (from Italy to kaspian and Caucasus) and had under their control the Arab Emirates and the caliphate which when the combined forces of the Arabs lost the 2nd battle of apameia and the battle of antarados. They signed a treaty in 1001 A.D to end the war and they (Arabs and Egyptians) recognised the Byzantine superiority over them. about the annual income is completely true. Historians Michael Pselos and zonaras confirm that
Vasilis Brentas it is not. The fatimids ruled Egypt, the Buyids ruled Mesopotamia. The Abassids were still nominally in control of the Arab penninsula, but local rulers ruled it. Basil in total had 1 skirmish with the Fatimids in front of Aleppo, how did that translate in conquering a Caliphate that by this time had already fractured into a hundred pieces... Umayyad Spain, Almoravid Morocco, Abghlavid Africa, Fatimid Egypt and Palestine, Buyid Persia, Hamdanid Mosul etc. Basil even besieged Tripoli and did not manage to take it.
That map is probably tzimiskes’s campaigns.They held the coastal Levant for a few years in the start of Basil’s reign.They also had Mosul and Aleppo as vassals, so they probably incorporated it.
In my opinion Constantine can't be called a byzantine. I'd say the first byzantine emperor was Arcadius, since the empire was not going to unite anymore
@3:38 not sure where you got that map from but that blurb into syria is way inaccurate @4:09 John didnt conquer any territory in the eastern front. he maintained status quo by reinforcing the treaty of safar set in 969 after the sack of Aleppo. A much better plan than conquest. abbasids had no regional power in syria at this time it was a balance between Fatmids and Hamdanids @4:19 once again the territory stretches all the way to Baghdad . why? the Empire terminated the borders to just north of Homs with Aleppo as a vassal on purpose @7:06 literally zero of that is true. He did no conquering in the middle east. he maintained status quo when the Fatmids got upity .seiged Tripoli and forced a 10 year treaty. moved north to secure the lands of Tao and Manzikert in Armenia that were succeeded to him (without war mind you) and moved back to resume the bulgarian war. Not sure on the italy part i cant find any information that that happened. shout out to Leo III and John III both under looked emperors. nice list otherwise!
Schon F about the first one Basil ll had a great General named ooriphas who managed to occupy Syria. Book "προσωπα και γεγονότα τόμος 4" describe mention his conquests. About the second one historian schlumberger in his book "Byzantine epopoiie John Tzimiskes" describe with every detail the fall of Arabian cities (Damascus Baghdad and other). About the third one schlumberger book about Basil ll describes all of Basil's campaigns and conquests. Check these books and the books of Michael Pselos and zonaras. The epitaph of Basil II ever mentions about his victories over the arabs.
I have read both. Damascus yes was sacked but not occupied. Ooriphas didnt fully occupy any syrian territory that wasnt already controlled from Phokas's' conquest. Baghdad wasnt mentioned. Implying these were annexes like in the map is incorrect. the borders still terminated as described above.Johns and Basils tours werent land grabs they were tours to placate local powers and to maintain a buffer zone. once again "victory over the arabs" is a gross over simplification and doesn't mean he conquered any territory. thanks!
Basil l and ll and John I did conquer arabian lands. There is a book series of προσωπα και γεγονοτα also which shows what these 3 emperors conquered.What else you can read is in the description. Also as i said the epitaph of Basil II and the historians pselos and zonaras. These conquests which are shown in the video are based and in these books too if you dont believe me check these sources too.
Real History I double checked both skylitzes, pselos, john the deacon, yahyaiii and various other recent publishing's I simply can't fimd that information anywhere . the other source you mentioned must be wrong or we are misunderstanding something. If Byzantium conquered Baghdad it would be pretty easy to find that information as that would be a big deal. I
Guys would it be a nice idea if you made a video for the top 10 empresses of the ERE? 🙂 We had a bunch of them, and I believe women should not be overseen anymore
Just one correction....Justinian was Thracian and was the last emperor who spoke the Thracian language....Belizarius his General was also Thracian or as we call him Velizar....
hakan özdere read the description. Basil had the imperial lands; from south italy to kaspian sea and Caucasus and from the Danube to Palestine) Basil ll also had under his control the Arab emirates and the caliphate which when the combined forces of the arabs lost the battle of antarados they signed a treaty in which they recognized the Byzantine Empires superiority over them in 1001
Real History please recheck the map showed on the video at 8:39 besiding the figure of Basileos the second, if you have any geographic and historical intelligence about the period that Basil II lived, you would know that does not reflect the truth. By the way i have read that mighty emperor's biography, After the collapse of West part of empire,Justianus II reached the largest territorial borders,please edit the video.
hakan özdere dear friend I have made this map without separating the Byzantine lands from the states that were under Byzantine influence. The epitaph of Basil II describes the victories of the Byzantine empire against the arabs and Egyptians. As I wrote on the description due to the shortage of the video I didn't analyse Basil's II conquests. I will soon post a new analysed video about Basils ll conquests and everything is based on important historians mainly schlumberger and Pselos
@@realhistory3812 Making the map while not separating Byzantium from "states under its influence" is simply criminal. What even qualifies as under its influence? Because they had almost NO influence on states in southern arabia... yet you show them colored in?! At this rate, all of europe should be colored in as Byzantium influenced all of it somewhat, that map is wrong and you know it!
Basil II is indeed the #1 spot, his reign is one of the golden ages of the Byzantine Empire. Not to mention crushing the Krum Dynasties 1st Bulgarian Empire.
@Emperor Basil the Bulgar Slayer You seem to know your history but from what I remember, Maurice was an excellent general and very seldom lost a battle. Plus there was a lot of internal intrigue by his subordinates that he had to deal with as well.
Well, I do believe that Justinian I was the greatest emperor because he was the only one who made reconquest of almost whole Mediterranean, created and encoded roman law and reestablished notion of Pax Romana.
The great thing he did is that he denied giving the city (which had very little defending army or weapons) while being offered the choice to give the city without siege and reign as a ruler of the Peloponnese for the rest of his life.
Justinian I is too overrated: his crazy policy of restauratio imperii wasted a lot of resources that could be used to fortify the frontiers of the empire. Furthermore the greek-gothic war destroyed the italian peninsula and it practically gave the northen Italy to the lombards. My top 3 is Alessio I Comneno (3), Eraclio (2) and Basilio II (1). Everyone of them Saved the empire from the collapse and made it even stronger.
Kopsgaming Eraclio made the empire stronger? Wtf are you smoking. At the start of his reign he devastated Egypt by sieging Alexandria and then he went on to lose most of his empire to the Sassanids. He managed to make a comeback and was on the verge of ushering a new Pax Romana but then he got his ass whooped by the Arab at yarmouk forever losing Syria, Levant, and Egypt.
i have another question about basil II. what was actually his nationality?? i read in some sources that basil II (and the macedonian dynasty in general) was an armenian. is this true ??
greco greconia based on the encyclopedias papayrous larous and hydria and based on the book of historian paparigopoulos and based on the historians Michael Pselos zonaras and schlumberger Basil ll was greek and most of the dynasties were greek. the Macedonian dynasty was greek and was founded by Basil l who was half from the Greek city of Thessaloniki and half from the Greek Thrace. Also isaurian dynasty was half greek half Arab. The comnenian dynasty was greek. The paleologian dynasty was greek from Peloponnese and the emperors of nicaea were greek. Also the heraclian dynasty was half greek half Egyptian and the constantinian dynasty was half greek half Roman. Constantine the great was half greek half roman Basil ll was all greek (his mother was also from Thessaloniki )
why are the maps so wrong? or is it just looking at Byzantine vassals/tributary states as well as territory directly controlled by him? Still kinda sus, I don't think the Abbasid Caliphate was that huge in 1000.
Byzantine empire never existed it was called Romea, heronimus wolf was the first who mentioned Romea as byzantine empire, the only reason for that is to hide Serbs from the ROMAN Empire, becouse 40 Serbs were emperors the first of them was Septimije Sever, Greeks came first time in the 8th century ad on the throne Michael rangabe.
Four and twenty elders rise From their princely station: Shout his glorious victories, Sing the great salvation: Cast their crown before his throne, Cry in reverential tone: Glory be to GOD alone, Holy, holy, holy ONE!
Is there any Christian who's obsessed with Byzantium and the history of Christendom/Christianity in general, who would like to help me create an animation project about the history of Christendom/Christianity (Battle of Tours, Battle of Covadonga, Battle of Nineveh)? Movies/animes about Heraclius, Charlemagne, and many other heroes of Christendom... My discord is: Proletariado#4420 Will you please add me, my brother in Christ?
Lot of inaccuracies here..they were Roman..not Byzantine 1st of all...2nd of all for sure not even modern scholars who apply byzantine to that would include Constantine the Great in that list!! smh..who made this video? And the territory assigned to Basil the Bulgar slayer in N. Africa is incorrect as well.
Actually it was Theodosius I that made Christianity the official religion of the roman empire Constantine was just the first Christian emperor and made it legal fun fact: he was the father of Arcadius and Honorius too the first emperors of the western and Eastern roman empires
don't you think it's a shame that byzantium is not that mainstream? there are 50 movies of henry viii and how many of..... heraclius for example? my discord: Proletariado#4420
While Basil II was a good emperor, Justinian was named the great for a reason! I believe you undervalued the man who helped the empire get anywhere close to Basil's time.
Real History the last byzantium emperor deserves a honorable mention. Konstantinos the 13th did the best he could to sane the empire and could have been a great emperor.
a random guy from greece I 've put the last Byzantine emperor in the honourable mentions in the end of the video. I agree Constantine could have been a great emperor.
Real History Michael Psellos was a court writer to Basil of course he puts him in a good light. Fact is the Fatimids invaded twice during his reign. The first time he was too late to prevent them defeating his Doux of Antioch, the second time he had a glorified skirmish and both sides agreed fighting was pointless and made peace. A peace that allowed him the freedom to campaign for that long in the Balkans.
8:40 that's totally wrong the Byzantine Empire was never as big as the map shows Basil II didn't conquer Levant , Egypt , Mesopotamia , North Africa , Caucas , Iran even Anatolia he didn't conquered all of it Basil II only took parts of Levant and and Anatolia and during his reign the Fatimids destroyed the Byzantines twice , at the Battle of the Orontes in 994 and the Battle of Apamea in 998 , and Basil II besieged Tripoli twice in 995 and 999 and lost both of them and forced to make a ten year truce with Fatimids And also the Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah persecuted Christians and destroyed many churchs including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 and Basil never responded Only Aleppo paid him tribute and it was conquered by Phokas not him Yeah he was a powerful Emperor but he wasn't as powerful as you thought and indeed he wasn't the most powerful Byzantine Emperor .
wow, great video. i was just surprised to see Alexius on 10th place. Certenly higher than Manuel and John. I think you should compare status of the empire when certen emperor took the empire and how he left it. Also, Basil II was certenly the greatest emperor but he wasnt the gretest general. Remember that he actually lost the first chash against bulgarians and why. Belisarius, Nicephorus II and John Tzimiski were far better gerenrals than him.
Dick Johnson, I wouldn't say laughing stock he was the few Byzantine emperors the west respected, he also brought the balkains under Roman control and defeated the Turks in multiple battles, he also completely subjugated the crusader states to his will.
don't you think it's a shame that byzantium is not that mainstream? there are 50 movies of henry viii and how many of..... heraclius for example? my discord: Proletariado#4420
@@christospanagopoulos5821 Not the rest of Europe: Gothic Europe only, and only Gothic Europe. Everyone else (including the rest of Europe and the Middle East) continued to call them Romans, and only from the late 11th century did Gothic Europe adopt this propaganda policy. A century earlier and they still called them Romans. It all has to do with a quasi politico-religious war. The Goths tell three great lies, two of them are political and religious: 1. Providence has given them to inherit the Roman empire, 2. Providence has given them to control the Catholic Church. The third one is philosophical: 3. Reason has given them to know the essence of God and the essence of all nature. These are propaganda lies of Goths to Goths, and their on going attempts to get the rest of the world to believe what are prideful and Satanic lies.
@@Josdamale even the runestones in Scandinavia referring to varangians serve for the Greeks in the land of the Greeks. They were studying homer and read about achileus in their schools not for Julius caesar
@@christospanagopoulos5821 I'm not sure what you are saying, but by Gothic Europe I am referring to that part of Europe and Africa (and later America) that came under the domination of various Germanic tribes. The Roman term for the Germanic peoples was Gothic or Getae. I am using it in that sense.
Wait so is nobody talking about how immaculate this video is in regards to territory? The Byzantine empire never conquered Arabia or Mesopotamia. In 1025 (as shown in #1) The empire never even touched Africa and realy didn’t stretch out past Anatolia. Idk where this person got this info. As cool as it would be to have reached that height tho lol
Sorry but you're wrong about Constantine the Great. He did NOT make Christianity the official Imperial religion. He simply decriminalized it..the official government policy of his time was toleration of Christianity. It was Theodosius the Great, many years after Constantine's death, who proclaimed Christianity the official religion of the Empire.
When Basil II died, the Byzantine army was the most effective fighting force in the civilized world.
Good work, mentioning Emperor Constantine XI Dragas Paleiologos was a nice touch. At that point it was too late for Byzantium but he was wise ruler and brave one as he died in the battle like common soldier or citizen defending his great city of Constantinople on that last day in May 1453. He is a Saint for all Hellenes and Serbs (his mother was Serbian). May his soul rest in peace because he is already in heaven by his deeds.
The Marble Emperor
Glory to Constantinople
Nina Rachinska İSTANBUL= İSLAMBOL
ALHAMDULLİAH 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
We in true way , so Allah give Victory to Turks🇹🇷
We are sword of Allah ❤️
Soldier of Mustapha Kemal Pasha and Mehmed the conqueror of unconqueroble city 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
Islam isnt a religion of peace and killed the greatest nation the world ever seen because you had an ego problem combined with the lowest iq in the world problem.
@@Hakanerdmmm Arabs are the sword of Allah just saying...
Glory to Byzantium!
Roman Empire*
You mean...glory to Romania! Because there was NO ``Byzantine'' empire!!!
Constantine XI could have run and lived in comfortable exile. He died at the front with his men.
But that was a sign of great bravery. Remember, "I won't be an Emperor without an Empire" -Constantine XI
Make Byzantine great again.
Is there any Christian who's obsessed with Byzantium and the history of Christendom/Christianity in general, who would like to help me create an animation project about the history of Christendom/Christianity (Battle of Tours, Battle of Covadonga, Battle of Nineveh)? Movies/animes about Heraclius, Charlemagne, and many other heroes of Christendom... My discord is: Proletariado#4420 Will you please add me, my brother?
How many empires did the Byzantine empire fought with;
1. Sasanian Empire
2. Rashidun caliphate
3. Bulgarian empire
4. Umayyad caliphate
5. Abbasid caliphate
6. Seljuq turkish empire
7. Ottoman turkish caliphate
Dexter Serbian empire.
Bolt Mix phaha
Dexter Kievan Rus.
Mike the Wanderer, wasn't an empire and more like raids, were almost always good allies after 976.
You forgot the Normans,the Kievan Rus,Pechenegs,Cumans and probably others
also the palaiologean dynasty had some nice emperors. they just dont had any achievements since the empire was on a absolute downfall after the 4th crusade
greco greconia I agree the palaeologians had good emperors that's why I put them in the honourable mentions
The only thing the palaiologean archived was to end the empire..not worthy of any honorable mention..
Nai re mounaki .enas apotuximenos ,adahs ,pornos kai oute allo exei katagrapsei h istoria afise enan ellinismo na svisi.mallon h apopsi sou einai entelos lathos ..prepei na legese adieksodo ellinon.
Ρε αρχίδι τράβα μάθε ιστορία. Μόνος του γάμησε Φράγκους και τούρκους στην Πελοπόννησο. Και έπεσε σαν ήρωας πολεμώντας για την Πόλη. Μήπως τον μπερδεύεις με τον μπάσταρδο θεοδόσιο που προσπάθησε να αφανίσει τον ελληνισμό; Ή με τον ομοφυλόφιλο Γεννάδιο; Μάλλον δεν είσαι Έλληνας, αλλά τούρκος ή Πέρσης, όταν δεν αναγνωρίζεις αγνούς Έλληνες αγωνιστές σαν τον Κωνσταντίνο Παλαιολόγο.
Hehehehe kalo einai na doksazeis httimenous dimarxous dioti peri dimarxio prokeitai me tin ektasei ghs pou kateixe h legomeni autokratoria sas ..
Mallon esu ekprosopeis tourkous praktores otan prospatheis na mou peraseis propanganda htimenon dimarxon?? Giati den ekpedeueis to mualo mou se autokratores nikites?
Constantine XI may was the last emperor of the Byzantine empire but he was a great man and warrior Glory to Byzantium and Bulgaria
I agree very sad year was 1453 for the whole of christianity
@@ninarachinska139 Ben katılmıyorum Eğer İstanbul Fetih edilmesiydi Avrupa Bugün ku konunumuna gelemezdi Amerika kıtası keşif edilmezdi Ticaret yolları bulunmazdı ilim bilim ve Teknikte Avrupa ileri gidemezdi
I need I need Byzantium I NEED MORE BYZANTIUM!!!!
don't you think it's a shame that byzantium is not that mainstream? there are 50 movies of henry viii and how many of..... heraclius for example? my discord: Proletariado#4420
@@minoutarromantic5805 indeed!
God bless you realhistory.
Nicephorus Phocas LIBERATED Crete and Cyprus. Both islands were Byzantine and solidly Greek and had been captured by Arabs until Nicephorus restored them to Byzantium.
Greeks need a Nikephoros phokas today 😞
Long live the Roman Eastern Empire
a bit to late for that now isn't it...
ki huu is byzantine empire = Greek Empire no Roman empire
it is both greek and roman .... greek culture and language + roman identety and state system= eastern roman empire... and btw romans were originally also greek who emigrated froma sia minor to italy!
Baiaz, just Roman Empire the codivision was ended by eastern emperor Zeno in 480 with support from Rome and constantinoples senate.
So many fucktards believe the Eastern Roman Empire to be a Greek one Jesus weren't you guys conquered forever by the Western Roman Empire. So you have a melting pot of all these different nationalities making up the Eastern Roman empire and all consider themselves Romans but due to that idiot Justin II feeling more comfortable speaking Greek it sticks. Thanks to that dbag Gibbon terming the Eastern Roman empire the Byzantine empire from that German (who fucking cares what his name is) in the 15th century. If you want to get technical wasn't majority of the general's and a few emperor's Armenian, more then Greek ones? #fact
Lastly the smartest Greek man alive to quote is Kaldellis, "Byzantines" were not a bunch of Greeks who thought themselves "Romans", but a bunch of Romans who happened to speak Greek.
Very good work man!
hellenictech thanks!!!
Βασίλειος ο Βουλγαροκτόνος. Αν ο διάδοχος του είχε την ίδια πυγμή και σοφία του, η Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία θα συνέχιζε, την λαμπρή πορεία της, μέχρι σήμερα.
Ευτυχώς που ψόφησε η φασίστικη Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία, γιατί αλλιώς δεν θα ήμασταν πλέον Έλληνες. Θα λεγόμασταν σήμερα Ρωμιοί (Εβραίοι ντυμένοι Ρωμαίοι, όπως ακριβώς και οι Ντονμέδες και οι Μπολσεβικοί) και θα ήμασταν Χριστιανοί. Τώρα πλέον αποκαλύφθηκαν οι αντιφάσεις αυτής της φασίστικης αυτοκρατορίας.
Και για να καταλάβεις πόσο φασίστικη ήταν, παρομοίασε την με την Ναζίστικη Αυτοκρατορία.
γιατι ρε παλικαρι μου γιατι;δηλητηριαζεις το μυαλο σου και την ψυχη σου.με αναρχικους εμπλεξες ή με αρχαιολατρες;
Γεωργιος Φραγκος με τον σωρρα😂😂
Σου έδωσα το δικαίωμα να μιλάς έτσι; Αν έχεις απωθημένα πηγαίνε να τα πεις αλλού. Ο φασίστας και ο ρατσιστής φάνηκε με τον τρόπο που μίλησες. Είχα θύματα στην οικογένεια μου στον πόλεμο του '40 και την κατοχή από τους ναζί γερμανούς , ιταλούς φασίστες και προδότες γραικύλους. Εδώ είναι χώρος επιστήμης και όχι για κυρήγματα.
Προς Tanno Buchino ο λόγος.
The greatest Byzantine emperor by fa,r was John Comnenus. He had to fight the worst enemies all around the empire and by intelligent strategy, diplomacy and warfare he managed not only to maintain but to expand the Empire. He also was extremely humane (people called him "Kaloyiannis" meaning "good John"), because he protected the poor against the rich local lords and he practically abolished the death penalty. Also never persecuted his adversaries and lived in austerity as a simple man. What a guy!
F. Nikol not at all Basil ll and the other emperors did much more. I agree that he was a great emperor but not the greatest
Real History Basill was only a brutal military man. He was good but only military wise.
F. Nikol not at all. Basil made many wise laws which made the empire very strong. Also Basil built churches and many public buildings and was the first socialist emperor who fought against the land owner noble class and helped the poor. He was undoubtedly the best Byzantine emperor
Yes but he was totally brutal. You know the story about the 15.000 Bulgarians... That was evil and brutal even for the medieval times and not pious at all to say the least...
F. Nikol I know the story but it wasn't illegal. Bulgarians revolted against the Byzantines and the penalty was blinding. Basil put the law in effect. In a war everything is possible and this even if you don't believe it was the best way to hurt the Bulgarian prestige. This tactic is very effective against the enemy. And because he did it doesn't mean that Basil was awful but he was a great emperor, the greatest. it is confirmed by history
Long live the Roman Empire! Glory be to God!
Septimius Severus (193-212)
Dustin Liu yea
What a nutty remark of abject ignorance -- the last official vestige of that empire is the bloody, pagan idol-worshipping cult known as the Vatican today. Yes, Satan's pagan church will be revived to become greater before God destroys it for good.
What the real fuck but i am proud of you
Septimius Severus is Greek empire
Great Work
thantop thank you very much!
are you sure basil ii conquered so much land as you show in 8.38??never saw thie picture before. only the map with the border from south italy to all anatolia plus all the balkans
greco greconia about the conquests of Basil II please check the description for no misconception. The conquests in this map aren't analysed because I didn't separated the imperial lands from the vassals-lands under Basils control and I will post a video about the conquests of Basil II analysing any detail with historical proofs
Real History great video, but some of the maps exaggerate the conquests. Basil II did not recover Palestine and Egypt, just Anatolia
Scott Brakefield read the description PLEASE
Sendo he destroyed arab and bulgarian countrys
It's of course hillariously exxagerated. If these conquests actually happened there probably wouldn't even be any Islam today.
Just one correction: it was Theodosius I who made Christianity the official religion, not Constantine.
Yeah Constantine just made Christianity legal.
I saw on goggle Constantine the great being the Christian ruler
@@thegamingguytgg6993 yeah, he was the first Christian emperor, but he did not make it the official Roman religion. However he did build 2 major churches and legalized Christianity, he also gave favorable positions to Christians.
It is not even a sure thing (there is only one source about turning christian on the death-bed) if Constantine was ever turned to Christianity.
Yea he's a monster he put pagans through the same things early christians went through only difference were that pagans made up 90% of the empire and I one day he killed more pagans than christians that ever died under romes heel
My favorite Bizantine Emperor is Heraclius. Long Live Byzantium!
Roman Empire*
He lost Syria and Palestine.
@@Zerg-MRH9999 He crushed Persia from the inside tho. Prevented the fall of Constantinople and made the economy great
@@kalaitzideschrestos224 but not for a long time))))))
He was terrible. He did the most massacres on the Empire's people.
John III Doukas Vatatzes definitely deserves to be included in this list. He was by far the most succesful emperor in the post fourth crusade era both in terms of achievements and personality-appeal to the population.
I wonder if you purposely decided to include only the emperors who ruled with Constantinople as their capital thus excluding the consideration of any of the emperors of the Laskarides dynasty.
Galahand87 there are many great Byzantine emperors. I put the top 10 based on historical books. without a doubt vatatzes was great
I agree and also wrote about Vatatzes in a comment. He was one of the best.
The Byzantines basically Started with a Constantine and ended with a Constantine
Both had a Helena for a mother...
@@MoveInSilence23 spooky
Ancient Rome started with Romul and ended with Romul///
1. Constantine, the Great
2. Justinian the Great
3. Basil II
4. Heraclius
4. Leo III
4. Alexius I
7. Nicephorus II
8. John II
9. John I
10. Maurice
Huh? Maurice?!
Justanian is the best in most peoples opinion maybe becuase he, you know... ALMOST RESTORED THE WHOLE ROMAN EMPIRE AND CONQUERED MORE THAN THE ROMANS DID IN 300 YEARS?
Could Be Anybody Justinian was a great emperor but he doesn't deserve to be number one because he was responsible for bankrupting the empire by wasting a lot of money to build useless fortifications on the river Danube which were easily destroyed by the Slavs some years later. Also he was responsible for spending a lot of money to extravagant campaigns against the barbarians also he gave a lot of money to the sassanids in order to make peace and imposed heavy taxes to his people. When he died he left the Byzantine treasury empty and many enemies were threatening the empire. On the other hand Basil ll the bulgarslayer was a real reformer. He improved the empire's production and trade and imposed heavy taxes to the aristocracy (Δυνατοί) and made laws which helped the poor people weakening the aristocracy by taking from them lands which were previously owned by farmers and forced them to return them back. Also Basil fought in the frontline in every battle and he won 2 civil wars against the Byzantine elite and beat all major superpowers in a 3 front war. He was the one who reconquered the Balkans and eliminated the Bulgarian empire which was a strong kingdom threatening the empire. He also destroyed the arabs at Syria and Antarados and in the second battle of apameia and conquered the Armenians the Georgians and the lands of today Azerbaijan. He forced the arabs to be States under Byzantine influence like vassals. Also he repelled and christianized the Russians and repelled the massive armies of the holy Roman empire twice reaching Rome which became vassal to the emperor who controlled the Papal throne. The annual income of the empire under Basil ll was 90 TONS of gold. He made the Hellenic Byzantine Empire the strongest power in the known world. When he died in 1025 ad he left the empire with many financial resources making the empire the richest in the world. Justinian never did such a thing. He never commanded an army or fought in a battle. Of course he made magnificent structures but Basil II was the one who fortified the economic centres and built magnificent defences. Both of them did many good things but the emperor who deserves to be the greatest is Basil ll he was a military political and economic genius. That's not my opinion only that's the real historical facts. Hope I covered you ☺
Justinian was a complete moron. He caused vast amounts of damage in the former Roman west because he was more determined to indulge in his paranoia and undercut loyal generals like Belisarius than he was with actually doing anything of use. He barely ever gave them enough resources or men that he could easily spare which left the western provinces wide open to invasion. The money he used to pay off the Persians could've easily been used to field an army to drive them out. If he had left Belisarius in Italy and used Narses in the east he could've had his place in history as something more than a monster who was so hated and unpopular his own subjects rose up against him.
If it hadn't been for Justinian doing that Narses and Belisarius could've not only routed the Ostrogothic forces in Italy but also stopped and repelled the Lombards. As it was, the damage done by Justinian left Italy open to the eventual invasion and conquest of the Italian penninsula by the Lombards, who may not have had the manpower to defeat a well-supplied and funded Byzantine army if the job of defeating the Ostrogoths had been done properly. Instead, the remaining Ostrogothic forces remaining after the defeat of Totila eventually joined the Lombard invasion.
And not only that but Justinian's tight-fistedness caused a revolt in the newly re-conquered Africa province taken from the Vandals. And not long after that even that province fell to the Arabic forces and eventually the Berbers.
Justinian's reign should be remembered as a warning of how enormous sums of money and extensive manpower can be completely mishandled by a fool too far removed from the populace and reality and who suffered from severe paranoia and jealousy because he could not command or trust in Belisarius who was probably the most loyal Roman general since Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo.
He did that by bankrupting the empire. To the contrary Basil gave the empire with good funds. Also Basil came at a critical time when the empire had ultra rich-oligarchs and ultra poor people ( this divide was one of the reasons the empire fell) and fought hard the aristocrat-oligarchs and made the divide between ultra rich and ultra poor smaller. ( the ultra rich aristocrats and oligarchs hated him, and he actually ate together with the army at army meals ) After him the situation started going out of control again at an accellerating pace.
@@craigstevenson5152 Justinian couldn’t afford to have a sizeable army in Italy and against the Sassanids. Had he completely focused on one enemy, he’d have been obliterated in battle. And while he could’ve better managed the vast sum of resources he’d had at the start of his reign, he had to deal with the plague dealing a considerable blow to a population that was now paying more taxes because of his conquests. Had the plague struck before the Italian campaign, Justinian could have used his bank account to lessen the blow the plague had on the population. But the plague managed to strike at a time when the empire was managing a war while still having a huge enemy to guard against.
@@realhistory3812 Oh, that was nice!
Mighty greek history, so many great Men and accomplishments
@MISERICORDI A oh, you mean holy Roman empire speaking German?
@MISERICORDI A is Greek history this "Eastern Roman". The whole Europe called them Greeks back then and later find this "Byzantine" term. as holy Roman is German history.
@MISERICORDI A ok, whatever you say...
@MISERICORDI A thank you lombard!... Ehm.. I mean Roman...
@MISERICORDI A kind regards Hun
Some other honourable mentions would be Leo the Isaurian, Constantine IV, Theodosius the Great, Plus the great administrator emperors of the fifth century, Marcian, Leo, Zeno and Anastasius who did much to bequeath a full treasury. Maurice is interesting too. He ultimately failed, and his work, the restoration of the Danube frontier was to be undone by the usurpation of Phocas, the Sassanid war and the invasions and raids on two fronts of the Arabs and the Slavs, Avars and Bulgars from the north. But had his work succeeded and had he not being deposed the empire might have maintained the urban society of late antiquity, the Danube frontier and curtailed the Islamic century of conquest. Had he done these things the world would be very different from what it is today.
I really would like to see Mehmed II go against Basil II.
Basil II was very respectful and mighty man indeed, but that kind of a challenge may be like Napoleon vs. Julius Ceasar, am i wrong?
Depends who is who.
hakan özdere Mehmet 2 is no nepoleon.
Basil 2 would have crushed mehmet2
And I would really like to see mehmed 2 burn alive
hakan özdere basil II was way better military commander than Mehmed
Much was done to forget Byzantium.
If ottomans never existed byzantium would exist today
Armenia would be large.
Giannis Gkouvelos, highly doubtful.
No.If the successors of Basil II were as good as him,Byzantium would be something like what USA is today,in terms of army,economy and power.Ottomans were just an enemy,like other enemies of byzantium that got repelled (when the empire was powerful enough),such as the bulgars,the Arabs,the Normans etc.Also,westerners and especially the Venetians gave a big response for the falling of the empire
Byzantium reborn again in this modern age as Russia declared Moscow as new Konstantinople and Russia will make "New Modern of Byzantium" glory again meanwhile Jesus Son of Mary will govern that Empire to spreading peace and justice around the world
I dunno and nobody does the answer to that but at that point it was a dead corpse which had fallen by super bad management during a lengthy period.
ON THE NATURE OF THE BYZANTINES
THE NIKA RIOTS.
"NIKA" actually is the imperative form of the Greek verb ΝΙΚΩ (to win) and proves that the crowd at that time spoke Greek. "Win! Win!" is the shout we could hear today in a modern hippodrome full of English-speakers. "Vinci! Vinci!" it would be the cry of a Latin-speaking crowd. But at the 6th century AD, the Eastern Empire was totally hellenized and the crowd shouted "NIKA! NIKA!"; that is "win!" in Greek.
This is also the case with the most illustrious buildings in the capital. HIPPODROME was the official name of Constantinople's race track (meaning "horse-track" in Greek) and not CIRCUS, its Latin counterpart. As we can further see in 2mins30secs of this video, all parts of the Hippodrome have also Greek names. SPHENDONE is called the far end and means "slinger" in Greek (because its form resembles a slinger pocket) and KATHISMA ("seat" in Greek) is the name of the Emperor's throne.
Furthermore, the most iconic building of Constantinople - the Hagia Sophia cathedral - has its name in Greek (literally meaning "Holy Wisdom" and consequently God's Wisdom). Sophia and Sophy is a common female name today; it means exactly that: Wisdom. A variety of words also exists using the prefix "sopho-" (Greek for wisdom): Sophomore, sophist, Sophocles etc. If Hagia Sophia was built by Romans she would be named "Santa Sapienza" or something like that.
THE GREEK LANGUAGE DURING THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE
It is not a chance that about 4 decades after the Nika riots, Emperor Mavrikios aknowledged exactly that fact: That the people of the Byzantine Empire were not speaking Latin at all; so he decreed that all official documents were to be issued in both Latin (to mantain continuity with the old Roman Empire) and Greek "because this is the language of the people". In the same direction, Emperor Heracleios decreed 20 years later, that all official documents should be issued exclusively in Greek and not in both Greek and Latin "because the people doesn't speak it (the Latin) any more".
Indeed, there are no recorded official documents in Latin since 610 (10 years after his decree).
This process however (i.e. the bilingual issue of the imperial decrees) had begun centuries earlier. For example the famous "Edict of maximum prices" of Emperor Diocletian was carved in Latin to the west and in Greek to the east. The year was 301 AD. (Both stones have been recovered today).
ROMAN CONQUEST OF GREECE
The conquest of the then Greek world (modern Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt etc.) by the Romans was a gradual process that lasted about three centuries. It was a copmplex approach in order to succumb all the kingdoms of the Diadochoi (Alexander the Great's successors) by the famous Roman policy of "freedom of Greece". It was not a process that lasted a lone decisive battle or a single war.
After that process was completed, around the begining of the first century AD, a new reality emmerged: A unified Roman world with two cultural components: One Latin-speaking in the Western Empire and another Greek-speaking in the Eastern part. Most Roman aristocrats at the time spoke Greek too.
This fact was recognized (amongst others) by famous Roman poet and philosopher Horace in his Epistles, book II, epistle I, line 63:
“Graecia capta ferum victorem capot et arts intuit agrestic Latino”.
(Conquered Greece took captive her savage conqueror and brought her arts into rustic Latium).
FROM ROME TO BYZANTION
For that reason, when in 330 AD Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (a Romanised Illyrian-Greek) transferred the Imperial capital from Rome to a prosperous Greek settlement named Byzantion (founded by Greek king Byzas almost a millennium before) he knew he was entering a territory that everyone were speaking Greek and had virtually no natural Latin-speakers.
That's why historians (since 15th century AD) begun calling the Constantinople-centered Empire "Byzantine" and not "Roman": Because, especially after the fall of Rome to the Germanic tribes (476 AD) nothing "Roman" or "Latin" was left into it.
For that reason, modern linguistics also adopt this thesis. The language of that era is classified as "Constantinopolitan Greek" and not as "Constantinopolitan Latin".
The term "Byzantine-Greeks" is also coined to describe the dominant ethnicity of the Byzantine Empire.
THE TIME MACHINE
If, using a time machine, a modern person had travelled to the Byzantine Empire and had asked a Byzantine-Greek the question "What are you?" he would have received one of the two following answers:
1. If this was a citizen of the Capital, he would have gotten the answer "ΠΟΛΙΤΗΣ/POLITES" short form in Greek of the word "Constantinopolitan" (CONSTANTINOPOLITES).
2. But if the Byzantine was coming from anywhere else in the empire, he would have said: "Eemae Romios" ("I'm a Roman" in Greek).
If that time traveler had gone to a medieval European middle-class citizen and pointing towards a Byzantine-Greek had asked the former: "Who is he?" the European would have easily replied "This is a Greek".
If the same time traveller comes to modern Greece and asks randomly a Greek "Eesae Romios?" (“Are you Roman?” In Greek) he will get the stunning answer "Yes!".
If furthermore he asks a modern Greek from Instabul (modern Constantinople) “Eesae Politis?” he will also get the same positive answer as 1500 years ago.
ROMANIANS OR GERMANS ARE ROMANS?
So, are modern Greeks Romans? Of course not. As modern Romanians are not Roman just because they still run a country named “Romania”. As modern Germans are not Romans too, just because their medieval empire was named for a thousand years “Holy ROMAN Empire”. One’s true nature is not determined by how he calls himself; but instead by objective elements. I may call myself a neurosurgeon but just this does not make me one. Mycenaean-Greeks never call themselves “Greeks”. But everyone in the world today agrees that the army that Agamemnon landed on Troy were Greeks.
RUMS AND ROMIOI MEANING CHRISTIANS, NOT ROMANS
At the early stages of the Byzantine Empire, when Christianity was spreading, the demonym HELLENES was reserved only to pagan Greeks in order to distinguish them from ROMIOI who were the "Christian Greeks". When gradualy all Greeks became Christians and Rome was lost from the Empire, that distinction became meaningless and the term ROMIOI became a descriptive demonym for all Greeks that lasts untill today.
In fact, Rum (Romans) was the word that also medieval Arabs used for Christians, not Romans.
CONCLUSION
For all the above reasons and in order to lift the confusion of the true essence of the Byzantine-Greeks, modern historians still call them Byzantines or Byzantine-Greeks but never Romans.
The demise of Rome (that at the time of its conquest by the Goths was a shrinking city of 50 thousand) and the contemporaneous growth of the Greek east (note: in the same era Constantinople - formerly known as Byzantion - was a thriving Greek city heading towards its first million in population) led historians to this shift of name: Because all the imperial decisions were not anymore made in Latin Rome but in Greek Byzantion (Constantinople).
NON CONSTANTINOPOLITAN BYZANTINES WERE USING THE DEMONYM “ROMIOI” FOR POLITICAL (SUCCESSION LINE) AND RELIGIOUS REASONS, WHILE EVERYONE ELSE IN EUROPE WERE CALLING THEM “GREEKS” AND THEIR KINGDOM “GREEK EMPIRE”!
SO, IT IS AN IMPORTANT ERROR TO CALL “ROMANS” THE BYZANTION-CENTERED EMPIRE WHO SPOKE GREEK AND HAD GREEK ANCHESTRY.
THIS NAME SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR THE ROME-CENTERED EMPIRE WHO SPOKE LATIN AND HAD LATIN ANCHESTRY.
THANKS FOR READING.-
Finally a true rational person who knows about history, I'm amazed of your knowledge sir.Those arrogant fools who gain knowledge from sites that are full of propaganda and trying to "poison" other people's minds who lack knowledge of the history ,i hope they'll learn their lesson
The maps are horrendous
In the school just Justinian and Irene.
In the book shop Classical Greece and Rome.
Why?
Most of the video was pretty good... but I had to leave a dislike, the map at 8:36 is just so stupidly wrong. I have no idea where you got it, but Basil II NEVER conquered Persia, not to mention north africa, egypt, the caucuses, and arabia... NO! He conquered NONE OF THAT! I agree that he was the best Byzantine Emperor, but at his death the empire controlled the Balkans, Anatolia, and some of Southern Italy... the rest of the map s completely wrong. He certainly never conquered Rome, Spain, North Africa, Egypt, Arabia, Persia, Mesopotamia, or the Caucuses or the Crimea.
just a minute man 1025 AD The Eastern Roman Empire did not had the Arabian peninsula,the Mesopotamia,the Egypt,The Levant and the Entire Northern Africa and Italy...he just created a very influential army and "obliterated" the step Bulgarians...(about the tax income... that's legit)
george haralampous will you ever read the description?
the map is ok
george haralampous read the description. Based on many historians such as schlumberger the Byzantine empire had its imperial land (from Italy to kaspian and Caucasus) and had under their control the Arab Emirates and the caliphate which when the combined forces of the Arabs lost the 2nd battle of apameia and the battle of antarados. They signed a treaty in 1001 A.D to end the war and they (Arabs and Egyptians) recognised the Byzantine superiority over them.
about the annual income is completely true. Historians Michael Pselos and zonaras confirm that
Vasilis Brentas it is not. The fatimids ruled Egypt, the Buyids ruled Mesopotamia. The Abassids were still nominally in control of the Arab penninsula, but local rulers ruled it. Basil in total had 1 skirmish with the Fatimids in front of Aleppo, how did that translate in conquering a Caliphate that by this time had already fractured into a hundred pieces... Umayyad Spain, Almoravid Morocco, Abghlavid Africa, Fatimid Egypt and Palestine, Buyid Persia, Hamdanid Mosul etc. Basil even besieged Tripoli and did not manage to take it.
That is probably Justinian and Bellisarius.
That map is probably tzimiskes’s campaigns.They held the coastal Levant for a few years in the start of Basil’s reign.They also had Mosul and Aleppo as vassals, so they probably incorporated it.
What is the name of this music 4:25
Mercurial by immediate music
Real History Think you
Long live Greece
do top 10 bulgarian emperors next
In my opinion Constantine can't be called a byzantine. I'd say the first byzantine emperor was Arcadius, since the empire was not going to unite anymore
@3:38 not sure where you got that map from but that blurb into syria is way inaccurate
@4:09 John didnt conquer any territory in the eastern front. he maintained status quo by reinforcing the treaty of safar set in 969 after the sack of Aleppo. A much better plan than conquest. abbasids had no regional power in syria at this time it was a balance between Fatmids and Hamdanids
@4:19 once again the territory stretches all the way to Baghdad . why? the Empire terminated the borders to just north of Homs with Aleppo as a vassal on purpose
@7:06 literally zero of that is true. He did no conquering in the middle east. he maintained status quo when the Fatmids got upity .seiged Tripoli and forced a 10 year treaty. moved north to secure the lands of Tao and Manzikert in Armenia that were succeeded to him (without war mind you) and moved back to resume the bulgarian war. Not sure on the italy part i cant find any information that that happened.
shout out to Leo III and John III both under looked emperors.
nice list otherwise!
Schon F about the first one Basil ll had a great General named ooriphas who managed to occupy Syria. Book "προσωπα και γεγονότα τόμος 4" describe mention his conquests. About the second one historian schlumberger in his book "Byzantine epopoiie John Tzimiskes" describe with every detail the fall of Arabian cities (Damascus Baghdad and other). About the third one schlumberger book about Basil ll describes all of Basil's campaigns and conquests. Check these books and the books of Michael Pselos and zonaras. The epitaph of Basil II ever mentions about his victories over the arabs.
I have read both. Damascus yes was sacked but not occupied. Ooriphas didnt fully occupy any syrian territory that wasnt already controlled from Phokas's' conquest. Baghdad wasnt mentioned. Implying these were annexes like in the map is incorrect. the borders still terminated as described above.Johns and Basils tours werent land grabs they were tours to placate local powers and to maintain a buffer zone. once again "victory over the arabs" is a gross over simplification and doesn't mean he conquered any territory. thanks!
Basil l and ll and John I did conquer arabian lands. There is a book series of προσωπα και γεγονοτα also which shows what these 3 emperors conquered.What else you can read is in the description. Also as i said the epitaph of Basil II and the historians pselos and zonaras. These conquests which are shown in the video are based and in these books too if you dont believe me check these sources too.
Real History I double checked both skylitzes, pselos, john the deacon, yahyaiii and various other recent publishing's I simply can't fimd that information anywhere . the other source you mentioned must be wrong or we are misunderstanding something. If Byzantium conquered Baghdad it would be pretty easy to find that information as that would be a big deal. I
what can i say these books do exist and they are trustworthy (the greek one) because they are based on trustworthy sources.
Guys would it be a nice idea if you made a video for the top 10 empresses of the ERE? 🙂 We had a bunch of them, and I believe women should not be overseen anymore
Just one correction....Justinian was Thracian and was the last emperor who spoke the Thracian language....Belizarius his General was also Thracian or as we call him Velizar....
Petar Stefanov Illyrian* just like Constantine.
@Darrian Magnum dardania kosovo iliria albania and later dalmara bosnia and montenegro
The map for Basil II was WILDLY inaccurate, even though I agree with your list overall, and he was awesome, but what even is that map.
Ikr it's hilarious
Basil II was the greatest emperor of Eastern Roman Empire but the map that showing where he conquered and ruled is totally wrong, check it please
hakan özdere read the description. Basil had the imperial lands; from south italy to kaspian sea and Caucasus and from the Danube to Palestine) Basil ll also had under his control the Arab emirates and the caliphate which when the combined forces of the arabs lost the battle of antarados they signed a treaty in which they recognized the Byzantine Empires superiority over them in 1001
Real History please recheck the map showed on the video at 8:39 besiding the figure of Basileos the second, if you have any geographic and historical intelligence about the period that Basil II lived, you would know that does not reflect the truth. By the way i have read that mighty emperor's biography, After the collapse of West part of empire,Justianus II reached the largest territorial borders,please edit the video.
hakan özdere dear friend I have made this map without separating the Byzantine lands from the states that were under Byzantine influence. The epitaph of Basil II describes the victories of the Byzantine empire against the arabs and Egyptians. As I wrote on the description due to the shortage of the video I didn't analyse Basil's II conquests. I will soon post a new analysed video about Basils ll conquests and everything is based on important historians mainly schlumberger and Pselos
hakan özdere please read the description for no more misconceptions
@@realhistory3812 Making the map while not separating Byzantium from "states under its influence" is simply criminal. What even qualifies as under its influence? Because they had almost NO influence on states in southern arabia... yet you show them colored in?! At this rate, all of europe should be colored in as Byzantium influenced all of it somewhat, that map is wrong and you know it!
Basil II is indeed the #1 spot, his reign is one of the golden ages of the Byzantine Empire. Not to mention crushing the Krum Dynasties 1st Bulgarian Empire.
Maurice could be included as well
@Emperor Basil the Bulgar Slayer You seem to know your history but from what I remember, Maurice was an excellent general and very seldom lost a battle. Plus there was a lot of internal intrigue by his subordinates that he had to deal with as well.
thank you!!
I guess you could say the map of Basil II is combined alliances and influence of the time...???
HERE IS MY NEW CHANNEL ABOUT GREEK HISTORY IN GREEK
ua-cam.com/channels/btL0mRVVI7VKmPwZMNvGyw.html
Well, I do believe that Justinian I was the greatest emperor because he was the only one who made reconquest of almost whole Mediterranean, created and encoded roman law and reestablished notion of Pax Romana.
Constantine and Justinian were Illyrian why don't say that ?
...and then he went on and conquered India, China and Japan
although with no major achievements... would have kept constantine xi on that list
the last emperor who died defending his city
The great thing he did is that he denied giving the city (which had very little defending army or weapons) while being offered the choice to give the city without siege and reign as a ruler of the Peloponnese for the rest of his life.
The bulgarslayer man ah so painful
Justinian I is too overrated: his crazy policy of restauratio imperii wasted a lot of resources that could be used to fortify the frontiers of the empire. Furthermore the greek-gothic war destroyed the italian peninsula and it practically gave the northen Italy to the lombards. My top 3 is Alessio I Comneno (3), Eraclio (2) and Basilio II (1). Everyone of them Saved the empire from the collapse and made it even stronger.
Kopsgaming Eraclio made the empire stronger? Wtf are you smoking. At the start of his reign he devastated Egypt by sieging Alexandria and then he went on to lose most of his empire to the Sassanids. He managed to make a comeback and was on the verge of ushering a new Pax Romana but then he got his ass whooped by the Arab at yarmouk forever losing Syria, Levant, and Egypt.
God I love Basil the Bulgarslayer
i have another question about basil II. what was actually his nationality?? i read in some sources that basil II (and the macedonian dynasty in general) was an armenian. is this true ??
greco greconia based on the encyclopedias papayrous larous and hydria and based on the book of historian paparigopoulos and based on the historians Michael Pselos zonaras and schlumberger Basil ll was greek and most of the dynasties were greek.
the Macedonian dynasty was greek and was founded by Basil l who was half from the Greek city of Thessaloniki and half from the Greek Thrace. Also isaurian dynasty was half greek half Arab. The comnenian dynasty was greek. The paleologian dynasty was greek from Peloponnese and the emperors of nicaea were greek. Also the heraclian dynasty was half greek half Egyptian and the constantinian dynasty was half greek half Roman. Constantine the great was half greek half roman
Basil ll was all greek (his mother was also from Thessaloniki )
greco greconia these sources which I'm referring to are very trustworthy and correct
why are the maps so wrong? or is it just looking at Byzantine vassals/tributary states as well as territory directly controlled by him? Still kinda sus, I don't think the Abbasid Caliphate was that huge in 1000.
What's with the dislikes? Looks like a cool unique channel and video.
Where did you get those maps...
why is alexius at 10? he began the restoration he is atleast better than manuel
Imagine restoring half of the Empire and being put #10 😒
Where the hell is Theodosius II?
Byzantine empire never existed it was called Romea, heronimus wolf was the first who mentioned Romea as byzantine empire, the only reason for that is to hide Serbs from the ROMAN Empire, becouse 40 Serbs were emperors the first of them was Septimije Sever, Greeks came first time in the 8th century ad on the throne Michael rangabe.
siempre hay que recordar la historia de este glorioso imperio .
4:42 isn’t that valentinian
So the Comnenian dynasty was just great, the exact opposite of the Doukas who were a scourge to byzantium. However none can beat the great Basil II!
Four and twenty elders rise
From their princely station:
Shout his glorious victories,
Sing the great salvation:
Cast their crown before his throne,
Cry in reverential tone:
Glory be to GOD alone,
Holy, holy, holy ONE!
Is there any Christian who's obsessed with Byzantium and the history of Christendom/Christianity in general, who would like to help me create an animation project about the history of Christendom/Christianity (Battle of Tours, Battle of Covadonga, Battle of Nineveh)? Movies/animes about Heraclius, Charlemagne, and many other heroes of Christendom... My discord is: Proletariado#4420 Will you please add me, my brother in Christ?
PLEASE CHECK THE NOTES IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE VIDEO FOR BASILS CONQUESTS FOR NO MISCONCEPTIONS.
HALLELUJA GOD BLESS ALL CHRISTIANS AMEN
you are the best
Lot of inaccuracies here..they were Roman..not Byzantine 1st of all...2nd of all for sure not even modern scholars who apply byzantine to that would include Constantine the Great in that list!! smh..who made this video? And the territory assigned to Basil the Bulgar slayer in N. Africa is incorrect as well.
Actually it was Theodosius I that made Christianity the official religion of the roman empire Constantine was just the first Christian emperor and made it legal fun fact: he was the father of Arcadius and Honorius too the first emperors of the western and Eastern roman empires
best empire ever
Info is great, just the reading time is way too fast and had to pause several times to read properly...
Where is john III
At the pub,as usual
The map of Basil is not true 1025 A. D
inmortal imperio bizantino .
Byzantium is a ship floating thru cosmos its untouchable
don't you think it's a shame that byzantium is not that mainstream? there are 50 movies of henry viii and how many of..... heraclius for example? my discord: Proletariado#4420
@@minoutarromantic5805 you got a point
While Basil II was a good emperor, Justinian was named the great for a reason! I believe you undervalued the man who helped the empire get anywhere close to Basil's time.
Only a plague stopped him. Maybe paganism is the true way after all
Basil ii best
i love comnenian dynasty
Fun fact when Basil 2 died he ordered to be buried like a common civilian in a random graveyard.
Basil the II did NOT take the Arabian peninsula no Roman emporer ever did so. Incorrect facts
scales lizard1 the Arab Emirates became Byzantine vassals. That's how Michael Pselos and zonaras describe it
scales lizard1 also the epitaph of Basil II mentions the victories over Arabs
Real History the last byzantium emperor deserves a honorable mention. Konstantinos the 13th did the best he could to sane the empire and could have been a great emperor.
a random guy from greece I 've put the last Byzantine emperor in the honourable mentions in the end of the video. I agree Constantine could have been a great emperor.
Real History Michael Psellos was a court writer to Basil of course he puts him in a good light. Fact is the Fatimids invaded twice during his reign. The first time he was too late to prevent them defeating his Doux of Antioch, the second time he had a glorified skirmish and both sides agreed fighting was pointless and made peace. A peace that allowed him the freedom to campaign for that long in the Balkans.
2:39 Very Nice picture
8:36 This is the most legit part of the video. XD
the first pcture for Alexios(not alexius) was of his daughter Ana Komnene and the second was of him
8:40 that's totally wrong the Byzantine Empire was never as big as the map shows
Basil II didn't conquer Levant , Egypt , Mesopotamia , North Africa , Caucas , Iran even Anatolia he didn't conquered all of it
Basil II only took parts of Levant and and Anatolia and during his reign the Fatimids destroyed the Byzantines twice , at the Battle of the Orontes in 994 and the Battle of Apamea in 998 , and Basil II besieged Tripoli twice in 995 and 999 and lost both of them and forced to make a ten year truce with Fatimids
And also the Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah persecuted Christians and destroyed many churchs including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 and Basil never responded
Only Aleppo paid him tribute and it was conquered by Phokas not him
Yeah he was a powerful Emperor but he wasn't as powerful as you thought and indeed he wasn't the most powerful Byzantine Emperor .
ΕΛΛΑΣ ΕΛΛΉΝΩΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΏΝ..... ΕΊΜΑΣΤΕ ΠΑΝΤΟΎ, ΘΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΡΈΨΟΥΜΕ ΚΑΙ Ή ΓΗ ΘΑ ΤΡΈΜΕΙ....
dustixos den tha epistrepsoume eimaste ena mikro ethnos pia . . .
wow, great video. i was just surprised to see Alexius on 10th place. Certenly higher than Manuel and John. I think you should compare status of the empire when certen emperor took the empire and how he left it. Also, Basil II was certenly the greatest emperor but he wasnt the gretest general. Remember that he actually lost the first chash against bulgarians and why. Belisarius, Nicephorus II and John Tzimiski were far better gerenrals than him.
like 3 of them are of the Komnenus dyansty what a dynasty
No way, Manuel is underrated.
manuel was the laughing stock of the turks and the venetians - he is overrated
Dick Johnson, I wouldn't say laughing stock he was the few Byzantine emperors the west respected, he also brought the balkains under Roman control and defeated the Turks in multiple battles, he also completely subjugated the crusader states to his will.
Manuel focused too much on the west when the heartlands of his empire, inner anatolia, was filled with enemies.
On the first mosaic i think that it's not Alexios I
don't you think it's a shame that byzantium is not that mainstream? there are 50 movies of henry viii and how many of..... heraclius for example? my discord: Proletariado#4420
Jhon douka Vatagis and best emperors
8:38 Great
Eastern Roman Empire.
Ρωμανία or βασιλεία ρωμαιων (reign of the Romans) though all rest Europe called them just Greeks.
@@christospanagopoulos5821 Not the rest of Europe: Gothic Europe only, and only Gothic Europe. Everyone else (including the rest of Europe and the Middle East) continued to call them Romans, and only from the late 11th century did Gothic Europe adopt this propaganda policy. A century earlier and they still called them Romans. It all has to do with a quasi politico-religious war.
The Goths tell three great lies, two of them are political and religious:
1. Providence has given them to inherit the Roman empire,
2. Providence has given them to control the Catholic Church.
The third one is philosophical:
3. Reason has given them to know the essence of God and the essence of all nature.
These are propaganda lies of Goths to Goths, and their on going attempts to get the rest of the world to believe what are prideful and Satanic lies.
@@Josdamale even the runestones in Scandinavia referring to varangians serve for the Greeks in the land of the Greeks. They were studying homer and read about achileus in their schools not for Julius caesar
@@christospanagopoulos5821 I'm not sure what you are saying, but by Gothic Europe I am referring to that part of Europe and Africa (and later America) that came under the domination of various Germanic tribes.
The Roman term for the Germanic peoples was Gothic or Getae. I am using it in that sense.
Wait so is nobody talking about how immaculate this video is in regards to territory? The Byzantine empire never conquered Arabia or Mesopotamia. In 1025 (as shown in #1) The empire never even touched Africa and realy didn’t stretch out past Anatolia. Idk where this person got this info. As cool as it would be to have reached that height tho lol
Need my Boi Justinian
Justinan the first is for me the greatest byzantine emperor
yea becouse he was born in Macedonia
Sorry but you're wrong about Constantine the Great. He did NOT make Christianity the official Imperial religion. He simply decriminalized it..the official government policy of his time was toleration of Christianity. It was Theodosius the Great, many years after Constantine's death, who proclaimed Christianity the official religion of the Empire.
Free Constantinople 🇬🇷
Where is this city ? in America ? 😆🖕