Whenever I read about Manuel's trip to the West or his son Ioannes' trip to Italy to sign the Union of the Churches, I am reminded of the desperation of the Greek leadership but also of the immerse respect these people had. Manuel was treated like a strong King in his voyages, and its clear that the figure of Roman Emperor was still respected, even by the Westerners who hated Byzantium.
Ironically signing that union probably helped alienate whatever support existed for the Palaiologoi since Constantinople proceeded to riot after hearing the news and leading to the proclamation that it would be more desirable to see the Turkish Turban in the midst of the city than the Papal Tiara.
@@jsdev4454Council of Florence. The Emperor came to Italy with the Patriarch of Constantinople and they agreed to accept the Filioque and made concessions to Roman authority. It didn't last even a day in Greece, as many Orthodox Bishops and citizens immediately rejected the Council.
I can only imagine how bitter it must have been for the late Byzantines to have to beg the Venetians for help, considering that they were the ones who destroyed the Empire
@@ScorpionZam The atrocities commited by the westerners in 1204 were worse than in 1453. Even if ottoman rule was arguably worse, greeks couldnt tolerate western catholic rule and revolted ofenly in places such as crete, as well as be apathetic to hostile to the venetian occupation of the pelloponese.
@Alain-Marie Rodrigue interesting and partly true. Venice did get conquered and evolved with largely German and Italian influence. By 476 the West was heavily germanized
@@rockstar450 indeed when the kingdom odoacer fell to the Ostrogoths, Venice was in the same situation as the rest of Italy. But after the reconquest of Justinian, it was back under Roman control and gain independence from said entity. I agree with you and your statement though.
Could you imagine being Manuel? A thousand years ago, every foot of land he had travelled to from Constantinople to London would have been Roman land. It must have been humbling.
@@pinghpin3but no one in the west regarded them as Roman. They were called Imperium Graecorium by them, mostly because the title of Roman Empire or Roman emperor was given to the HRE and its Catholic Ruler, the term has become very Christianised by this time.
He lived the last days of his empire, and he died only a few years before the complete fall of Constantinople. But I think the most tragic emperor must be Konstantinos Palaiologos. As long as he ruled the country, he tried his best to have some allies for the battle with the Ottomans, but it wasn't enough, and he was killed while fighting and his city was being destroyed.
@@Izanagi057 Yeah, I do. The definition of empire is an extensive group of states that answer to one single authority, usually an emperor. The definition of an empire is fluid in practice. England was referred to as an empire way before they had an colonies, or held dominion over Scotland. And theres the French Empire. That before 1800, had no holdings (mostly) outside of France. So yeah, if the rest of the world considers them an Empire. And they considered themselves an empire. Than I consider them an empire.
Why did he go to England and not a country like Spain? Spain, unlike England, actually had a powerful navy in the Mediterranean and was often at odds with the Ottomans. It seems they would be a far more valuable ally to try to convince to join their side than the English.
@@dann_playsow5811 Sorry. I should have specified that when I said Spain I was mainly refering to the Kingdom of Aragon, which did have a strong navy navy ans was often at odds with the ottomans
@@markdowding5737 perhaps he chose England due to their exploits during the 3rd Crusade? they weren't in the Mediterranean but still managed to sail all the way to the region.
@@markdowding5737 yes but maybe by that time it was a well known story to the byzantines. Also since the reconquista was still ongoing he maybe though the spanish would be of little help.
Whenever I read about Manuel's trip to the West or his son Ioannes' trip to Italy to sign the Union of the Churches, I am reminded of the desperation of the Greek leadership but also of the immerse respect these people had. Manuel was treated like a strong King in his voyages, and its clear that the figure of Roman Emperor was still respected, even by the Westerners who hated Byzantium.
Ironically signing that union probably helped alienate whatever support existed for the Palaiologoi since Constantinople proceeded to riot after hearing the news and leading to the proclamation that it would be more desirable to see the Turkish Turban in the midst of the city than the Papal Tiara.
@@dewd9327what union?
@@jsdev4454Council of Florence. The Emperor came to Italy with the Patriarch of Constantinople and they agreed to accept the Filioque and made concessions to Roman authority. It didn't last even a day in Greece, as many Orthodox Bishops and citizens immediately rejected the Council.
I can only imagine how bitter it must have been for the late Byzantines to have to beg the Venetians for help, considering that they were the ones who destroyed the Empire
Couldn't have been as bitter as being under the ottomans for hundreds of years
@@ScorpionZam The atrocities commited by the westerners in 1204 were worse than in 1453. Even if ottoman rule was arguably worse, greeks couldnt tolerate western catholic rule and revolted ofenly in places such as crete, as well as be apathetic to hostile to the venetian occupation of the pelloponese.
Fun fact Venice is a direct break away state of the eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium). So in a way, the empire was killed by its own child.
@Alain-Marie Rodrigue interesting and partly true. Venice did get conquered and evolved with largely German and Italian influence. By 476 the West was heavily germanized
@@rockstar450 indeed when the kingdom odoacer fell to the Ostrogoths, Venice was in the same situation as the rest of Italy. But after the reconquest of Justinian, it was back under Roman control and gain independence from said entity. I agree with you and your statement though.
Could you imagine being Manuel? A thousand years ago, every foot of land he had travelled to from Constantinople to London would have been Roman land. It must have been humbling.
He was not roman He is greek
The Byzantines never called themselves Byzantine. They were Roman Empire. The eastern section of it
@@pinghpin3but no one in the west regarded them as Roman. They were called Imperium Graecorium by them, mostly because the title of Roman Empire or Roman emperor was given to the HRE and its Catholic Ruler, the term has become very Christianised by this time.
He lived the last days of his empire, and he died only a few years before the complete fall of Constantinople. But I think the most tragic emperor must be Konstantinos Palaiologos. As long as he ruled the country, he tried his best to have some allies for the battle with the Ottomans, but it wasn't enough, and he was killed while fighting and his city was being destroyed.
Rest in eternal glory Constantinople.
Excluding Rome proper, Eastern Rome was one of the longest lasting Empires in history
Well to be honest Eastern Roman Empire lasted longer than Rome proper as well.
@@vanmars5718 Absolutely but I'm talking about over all, without the legacy of the rest of Rome it's still a monster of an empire
@@Izanagi057 Yeah, I do. The definition of empire is an extensive group of states that answer to one single authority, usually an emperor. The definition of an empire is fluid in practice. England was referred to as an empire way before they had an colonies, or held dominion over Scotland. And theres the French Empire. That before 1800, had no holdings (mostly) outside of France.
So yeah, if the rest of the world considers them an Empire. And they considered themselves an empire. Than I consider them an empire.
Constans I was the last emperor to have went to England.
Depends if you count Constantine III (the Western emperor, not the eastern one)
@@Serapeum Should he be considered legitimate though?
@@Constantine_BushHe was legitimized by Honorius so yeah
I will never forget Venice's great betrayal
Journey to the west, byzantine edition
I know that reference!
Why did he go to England and not a country like Spain? Spain, unlike England, actually had a powerful navy in the Mediterranean and was often at odds with the Ottomans. It seems they would be a far more valuable ally to try to convince to join their side than the English.
Was Spain even fully United yet? I know the unification was around this period but I think unification was just after.
@@dann_playsow5811 Sorry. I should have specified that when I said Spain I was mainly refering to the Kingdom of Aragon, which did have a strong navy navy ans was often at odds with the ottomans
@@markdowding5737 perhaps he chose England due to their exploits during the 3rd Crusade? they weren't in the Mediterranean but still managed to sail all the way to the region.
@@dann_playsow5811 the 3rd crusade had happened over 200 years before, and was mostly a result of the personal commitment of Richard Lionheart
@@markdowding5737 yes but maybe by that time it was a well known story to the byzantines. Also since the reconquista was still ongoing he maybe though the spanish would be of little help.
Very fascinating, thank you!
the road to most missery starts with greed
Glory to Rome
Promo'SM
Oh the diminutive Paeleologians and their Rhode Island sized "empire".
Blame Andronikos II
They faced over a hundred wars to reach that moment, which was expected to happen a lot earlier, so I see this as a win for the Byzantines.