My body is ready. Looking into Romanos IV Diogenes. Seems he was actually doing pretty well. Compared to his predecessor i mean. And if not for the Doukas... he might have been able to save the empire that year :(
The issue that led to manzikert was a natural consequence of eastern gains. Security in Anatolia meant soldier farmers only needed to be farmers and the improved prosperity led to increased mercenary usage. Had the theme system been retired around the time of Basil II perhaps the byzantines could have survived the Seljuks.
if I had a nickel for every time a a member of the phokades died suddenly while revolting against basil ii I'd have two nickels which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened two times
If you had two coins from Basil’s time. It would actually be a lot. They were at least 90% gold. And they were huge. It was one of the best economical periods of the Byzantine empire hence the coinage being so pure and made of gold instead of silver or copper or a mixture of silver and brass or copper and brass. So you would make a good profit actually
Ευχαριστούμε! All 5 parts of Basil's life are exceptional and very informative. Thank you also for presenting great historical figures without nationalism and myths.
damn it. this video makes me cry, man. more often than not, it is not the talented man, but the more diligent that gets things done. yes, Basil was a benefactor of his predecessors, but he could have been a total fool as well, and not care about working his butt off his whole life, but simply walking around the palace wearing his crown and telling servants to give him a foot massage presto! he had a very good opportunity, and he did not waste it. that's saying smth. about no heirs... guess he really did not care much about such things. all he really wanted was to make sure the empire lives on due to his hard work, he most likely though someone competent enough will eventually follow in his footsteps. but... that's just like saying "i wish the romans would stop having civil wars for maybe the next century or two. that would be nice." well... nope. btw, what disease did he have? i mean, for so many years on campaign during those days, i'm impressed he lived as long as he did. and about him pressing his brother to restart the baby making business... i really think he had bigger concerns. it was his brother's life, and unlike Basil, Constantin wasted his. also, it could be said that he should have pushed Basil into a brothel and pay some women in there to dry him up, but... he was too much of a baby prince that never grew up. really sad to see ppl born with such power simply uninterested. but they fail to pass it along to another, double the fault.
I've been reading Byzantine history since I heard about it by reading the decline and fall in the late 60s. The work about Basil II it's my favorite of all your documentaries and fascinating... Thank you I've read MichaelPsellos I never came across the anecdote about being reprimanded and his court... at least I don't remember it thank you
Bro Your videos are so much heart touching and full with glory of history so I love your videos so much . It is a common thing that your videos are able to win the heart of any one so I want that you should make a video on Skanderbeg . Please answer me when will you make a video on Skanderbeg and please keep it up I am admiring your hard work and determination which help you make that type Great video
@@dayanbalevski4446 not really, cruel and greatness can be binary, the bulgars deserved punishment, maybe not to the extent that Basil II gave them, but he had enough of them, and destroyed them
"...this practice was something he enjoyed 😇 Or at least tought was effective..." Basil, dude, getting yourself a girlfriend can do wonders for your mood, should try it sometimes
Hey Thersites, recently discovered your channel, and I'm really enjoying... Well, just about all of your videos lol, really great stuff! I know this is a bit direct and off-topic, but do you think you and Sean could recommend me some of your favorite strategy games that take place in the Napoleonic and American Civil War eras? I'm really interested in exploring the warfare of these time periods in a fun way. They can be both board and video games. If not, no worries, I'm just happy to watch your vids. :)
Basil II should be remembered also as the destroyer of the Byzantine empire. He literally assassinated the Macedonian dynasty. He was paranoid and forbade his nieces from marrying, fearing potential challengers to his throne. The empire became a victim of his success. The absent of a natural successor meant that no other ruler had full legitimacy from the people to lead or make necessary changes in the empire in the years that followed. The result was a long process of decline and the beginning of the end at the Battle of Manzikert, only about 45 years after Basil’s death.
Basil II had it for the aristocrats. They were bad news. They had too much power and showed too little competence for it. His entire life he 'fought' to keep them in check. The army was poorly trained, smth that was their responsibility to maintain. The policy was to use more mercenaries and keep the money meant for training in the treasury. This started before Basil II's rule. Thus, the army was quite dependant on mercenaries, even in Basil II's time. It became worse by the time Romanos Diogenes's days. In fact, the guy had so little to work with, his army was mostly mercenary made. Before the Manzikert debacle, there was a revolt caused by such mercenaries which was a pain in the rear to fix. Before the battle itself, lots of the mercenaries paid to fight just bailed, Romanos's army was diminished from the start. Couple that with the roman army which was poorly trained, and poorly equiped(sounds like my boss, make current workers work harder to compensate for crappy equipment and lack of manpower to get profits), add to that a misunderstood signal and betrayal from the Doukas... and you get Manzikert. Had the army been kept in good shape, equipment provided, mercenaries kept out of imperial strategy(they proved a problem even after the Manzikert happened, those that bailed to fight started to plunder the countryside, they had to be put down with other mercs - which ended up in defeat, which resulted in an alliance with the turks to beat them, which resulted in the acknowledgement of turk gains in Anatolia)... had all this been different, the romans would have lived for longer. Thing is...Basil II acted in the interest of the empire, i think. Had he known what WE know, he would have gone a different route. He did things according to the situation during his time. Fear of betrayals was common. Justinian feared Belisarius, Nikephoros Phokas feared his nephew, and pretty much everyone else. Such fear ages you prematurely. The REAL failure in my opinion was Constantin VIII. He did not have a male heir, he did not make sure their dynasty was kept strong, he kicked the bucket 3years after his brother and left his daughters to figure things out. And they failed too. All a bunch of consequences. To say Basil II destroyed the empire from not leaving a male heir while having a brother and 2 nieces is like saying the Western Roman Empire collapsed because of barbarian invasions or that Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg. There is lots more to a disaster than one single bad decision.
@@HappyLlama the loss of Manzikert meant the loss of Anatolia, the recruiting ground for their best soldiers. Without it, the romans could no longer recruit impressive armies as before, becoming just a regional power. They tried to reclaim it, but after Manuel Komnenos... none were worthy of the challenge. Coupled with the fall of the Komneni and the rise of Angeloi... the empire was so divided, that they had civil war, Trebizond broke away just shortly before the 4th crusade came about, and most of their forces were away protecting the frontiers. Although i am not sure anyone would have arrived to save the good-for-nothing emperor, who took off with the treasury. The sacking was what literally killed the hope of survival for the romans. It provided immense wealth to the crusaders, while the venetians and genoans simply helped themselves with some nice islands. So... for the battle at Manzikert, the romans could gather around 50thousand soldiers(many mercenaries, but they could be paid so wealth was still a factor). After 1204, the romans could muster only several thousands at best, the nicaenians stripped everything they had to rebuild Constantinople as much as possible, which left them broke and the east exposed for ottoman conquest and forever losing Anatolia to the turks. And we all know how that ended. Sad story, really.
@@ragael1024 It is ok to have a different opinion but I still believe that it was not as significant as the sack of the greatest city at least the medieval world had ever seen. Don't get me wrong, it was still a great loss. Truth is though the Empire had many triumphs and great losses like this one in the past and always recovered like in this case. Anatolia was still not lost in its entirety after the loss at Manzikert. Strong troops could still be recruited by some regions there and Thrace was one of the most important regions for recruitment. Don't forget that Constantinople itself had a very large population from all over the empire. The empire was still mighty for many years to come. Only when Constantinople fell the Empire crumbled and lost its prestige. It was the centre for many operations and everything started from there. As long as this city was intact the empire could survive anything like it did in the past. All the enemies of Byzantium throughout the years were aware of this and this is one basic reason they made historic campaigns like Persians, Arabs etc. and did not just try to occupy Anatolia.
@@HappyLlama not disagreeing. It's just that we call it differently. The battle at Manzikert was not the worst military loss for them. They recovered from much worse. However, after Manzikert, they deposed Romanos IVth, and had a 10year long civil war. Who protected Anatolia during that time? Almost nobody. The seljuks invaded. When finally the romans finished fighting each other, they could no longer raise the strong army they could before. Most of Anatolia was gone, and Anatolia was a tough environment, perfect for tough soldiers. Mainland Greece was a last resort for them, and Thrace was filled with bulgars. Also, in those days they mismanaged the army so much, they stopped spending money for its training and maintenance, and simply rely on mercenaries should the situation arise. Also, it's about taxation. No ppl to tax, no land to grow food... and yes, they pretty much lost all of Anatolia, during the 1st Crusade they managed to recapture Nicaea, which was very close to Constantinople, and under seljuk rule. By the end of Manuel Komnenos's reign, they managed to recapture half of inland Anatolia and the coast line. But why it is agreed that Manzikert was the beginning of the end? Because every empire has its ups and downs. And a recovery has to have a foundation. The loss of Constantinople was the loss of that foundation, together with too much land to the latins, and also it alienated many of their former subjects, resulting in split duchies and despotates that never wanted to rejoin the empire after that, or simply became vassals to other powers, like Venice. Anatolia was recruiting ground from lots of farmers. Farmers grew food too, so meant loss of feeding and taxing ground. Manzikert was just a military loss. What came qfter was the issue. Constantinople...was the killing blow.
After accounting for length of reign, I still think John I Tzimisces was equal or better than Basil. He could easily have accomplished everything that Basil accomplished if John had ruled for 40-50 years. In fact, John had already effectively conquered Bulgaria and secured the East before Basil came to power. So there really isnt any argument that John couldnt do what Basil did. John's skill in diplomacy and getting along with people was just another bonus that Basil couldnt match.
@@natehensley8810. Basil's biggest mistake in the East was conquering Georgia and annexing it into the Byzantine Empire. Georgia had been a useful buffer on the eastern frontier. Basil basically wrecked it and never bothered to re-fortify it (Basil had other priorities at the time). But this would open the door to the Turks down the road. Basil probably didn't know much about the Turks. The first major encounter with the Turks wouldn't happen until the 1040s during the reign of Constantine IX Monomachos.
03:46 here you say that Giorgi was ruler of Abkhazia. at that time Georgia already had been formed. David III of tao adopted Bagrat III (which was the heir of Abkhazia) and made the foundation for him to unite all the Georgian kingdoms and principalitys. Giorgi was the son of Bagrat and king of the unified Georgia.
Exellent video as aways, many thanks. Just a quick question, would you be willing to consider yourself friends with someone on the conservative right? I mean I realised the content creator is a leftist but to what extend? Just curious to what point you embrace discussing and freedom of speech.
in my view, his death on Dec 15th, 1025, meant the Empire's decline had begun by the morning of Dec 16th. He was the last Great Great Ruler of the Empire!. the period from Dec 16th1025 to 1057 was the decline of the Ruling House and 1057 to 1453 comes the period of the Comnenus, Ducas[perhaps worst family to rule?] Palaeologus period. with the Latin Emperors period and the states period with Epirus, Thessalonica, Thessaly, the empire of Trebizond, the empire of Nicaea, principality of Theodoro and from 1261 the restored[but weaker] empire, the period from the death of Basil 2nd run 1025to 1475.-How are you going to cover the years 1025to 1057?.their is Basil brother and then the period of the two sisters.in my view, while the dearth Of Basil began the finally slow decline, the reign of Isaac 1st began the last era of the history of the East Roman[Greek] Empire poiod[1057-1475]-please keep up your great work!.-oh it's of note that after 1203-1205 the empire[state] was never united as parts never came under one ruler!.in fact, could the dearth of the ERE be dated to 1203-1205 ad the period of 1205-1475 as the post Empire period?[the states period?]-could be called the disunity period
Did he conquer more territory than Justinian? Doubtful. But when the empire's fortunes go down after Justinian, it's because he 'overextended the empire'. After Basil, it's because 'his successors sucked'. Double standard favouring wrestlers over pigminders.
My man took a plague, a volcanic eruption with resulting famine, and an earthquake to the face and still increased revenues from 5 to 6 million solidi.
@@jacksambuck67 because he just conquered a lot of land? Not like he was any good at that lmao he basically sabotaged his best general at every opportunity. Belisarius never got the funds and supplies that were necessary and he still conquered Italy and North Africa for Justinian. What did Justinian do? Never trusted him AT ALL. Also he was a pussy,he was planning on running away from Constantinople until his wife beat some sense into him. The only good that came out of his reign was the legal codex. He was a good emperor but nothing compared to Basil II
Alexander the Great is credited with the spread of Hellenism. Shouldn't Basil II be given some credit for the creation of Slavic culture? After all, he helped convert the Slavic people to Christianity, by sending priests and monks but also artisans to help create their impressive and unique architecture and artwork. Why not add that to his legacy?
His role in the creation of Slavic culture reminds me more of Caesar's role in the eventual formation of the Helvetian Confederacy in that he forced his will on a people group and forever altered the course of their history.
wounder, if he had live just long enough to add Sicily and its offshore islands to the Empire again and put his Italian border north to Naples, would this had led to war with the HRE&Egypt?..would this had started the decline while he was still alive?[like with the Emperor Heruluis [610-641] and if he were sususful in Italy, how long would rule of the Empire lasted?.perhaps he died just at the right time?. while I have no doubt of his successes if he had lived, it may have led to things he could not have foreseen and thus in my view he went at the rights of his power and glory gave him a better ending than Herulius got
Bournoutian, George (2002). A Concise History of the Armenian People. Mazda Publishers. p. 89. ISBN 9781568591414. ....the later Macedonian dynasty, according to most Byzantinists, was of Armenian origin as well. [...] Ironically, it was this same Armenian dynasty which was chiefly responsible for the breakup of the Bagratuni kingdom. The important Macedonian dynasty was founded by Basil I (867-86), an Armenian. Chahin, Mack. The Kingdom of Armenia: A History. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2001, p. 232 ISBN 0-7007-1452-9 The reasons for this stunning reversal of fortune are still disputed, though some credit is surely due to the much-maligned but effective rulers of the Isaurian dynasty , Leo III (r. 717-41) and Constantine V (r. 741-75), who stabilized the empire’s borders after the catastrophic losses of the seventh century. 7 Since the founder of the Macedonian dynasty, Basil I (r. 867-86), was a Thracian peasant of Armenian origin, the term “Macedonian dynasty” is something of a misnomer, but it is used so ubiquitously in secondary scholarship and in the sources themselves as well that is pointless to attempt to replace it with something else. Chitwood, Zachary (2017). Byzantine Legal Culture and the Roman Legal Tradition, 867-1056. Cambridge University Press. p. 18. ISBN 9781107182561. Alexander Vasiliev argues that "The majority of scholars consider Basil an Armenian who had settled in Macedonia, and speak of his dynasty as the Armenian dynasty. But in view of the fact that there were many Armenians and Slavs among the population of Macedonia, it might be correct to assume that Basil was of mixed Armeno-Slavonic origin." Vasiliev, Alexander (1964). History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, Volume 1. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 301. ISBN 9780299809256. His father is widely considered to be of Armenian origin. Whittow, Mark (1996). The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025. University of California Press. p. 201. ISBN 9780520204966. Four emperors - Leo V, Basil I, Romanos I and John Tzimiskes - seem to have been Armenian, as well as the empress Theodora, Theophilos' wife...” Rosser, John Hutchins (2012). "Armenia". Historical Dictionary of Byzantium. Scarecrow Press. p. 56. ISBN 9780810875678. ...a number of important military leaders and civil administrators were Armenian, including emperors Leo V, Basil I, Romanos I Lekapenos, and John I Tzimiskes.” Treadgold 1997, p. 455: "Though of Armenian stock, Basil was called the Macedonian because he had been born in the Theme of Macedonia...." Evans, Helen C. (2018). "Armenians and Their Middle Age". Armenia: Art, Religion, and Trade in the Middle Ages. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 34. ISBN 9781588396600. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (r. 610-640) was the son of an Armenian... [...] In 867 Basil I (r. 867-886), whose father was also Armenian...” That Basil I, the founder of the most brilliant dynasty of the Byzantine empire, was indeed Armenian and Armenian on both sides, can be regarded as an established fact." Charanis 1963, p. 35. The Macedonian dynasty ( 867 - 1056 ) marked the apogee of the medieval Byzantine Empire . Its founder, Basil, a peasant born in Macedonia but of Armenian descent "Macedonian Dynasty." Oxford Reference. starting with the Vita Basilii, let us work through those sources advertising an Armenian ancestry for Basil I in chronological order. indication that Basil was of Armenian descent and that he came originally from Macedonia; in other words, he was a Balkan Armenian. Greenwood, T. (2018). Basil I, Constantine VII and Armenian Literary Tradition in Byzantium. In T. Shawcross & I. Toth (Eds.), Reading in the Byzantine Empire and Beyond (pp. 447-466). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108289993.023 The Byzantine emperor Basil I (ca. 812-886), also known as Basil the Macedonian, ruled from 867 to 886. Despite his unsavory rise to power, he was a gifted statesman who gave the empire new vigor and began its most durable dynasty. Of obscure Armenian parentage, Basil was born in Thrace. The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4 (1923). See also George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (1940; trans. 1956; rev. ed. 1969); The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4 (2d ed. 1966), pt. 1, edited by J. M. Hussey; and Romilly Jenkins, Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries, A.D. 610-1071 (1966). BASIL I. (d. 886), known as the "Macedonian", Roman emperor in the East, was born of a family of Armenian (not Slavonic) descent, settled in Macedonia. Vita Basilii, by his grandson Constantine VII. (bk. v. of the Continuation of Theophanes, ed. Bonn); Genesius (ed. Bonn); Vita Euthymii, ed. De Boor (Berlin, 1888). Of the Arabic sources Tabari is the most important. MODERN WoRKs. - Finlay, History of Greece, vol. ii. (Oxford, 1877); Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vols. v. and vi. (ed. Bury, London, 1898); Hergenrother, Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel, vol. ii. (Regensburg, 1867). (J. B. B.) Although he was technically of Armenian descent, Basil acquired the moniker “the Macedonian” because Armenia was in the theme of Macedonia at the time of Basil's birth around the year 811. peasants who were forcibly brought to Bulgaria in 813 under the Bulgar Kahn Krum. Eldridge, Kelsey, "Byzantine Emperors and Old Testament Kings: Contextualizing the Paris Psalter as a Product of Ninth and Tenth Century Byzantine Imperial Ideology" (2011). Summer Research. Paper 131.
May this series on the Byzantine emperors stand against the Sultanate of UA-cam for atleast 1000 years!
Greatest historical video series on UA-cam BY FAR.
X2
Right this guy is truly great and its very obvious he's way ahead of his time with lecturing on UA-cam 15/10.
Basil II, the man
The myth
The legend
My body is ready. Looking into Romanos IV Diogenes. Seems he was actually doing pretty well. Compared to his predecessor i mean. And if not for the Doukas... he might have been able to save the empire that year :(
The issue that led to manzikert was a natural consequence of eastern gains. Security in Anatolia meant soldier farmers only needed to be farmers and the improved prosperity led to increased mercenary usage. Had the theme system been retired around the time of Basil II perhaps the byzantines could have survived the Seljuks.
if I had a nickel for every time a a member of the phokades died suddenly while revolting against basil ii I'd have two nickels which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened two times
If you had two coins from Basil’s time. It would actually be a lot. They were at least 90% gold. And they were huge. It was one of the best economical periods of the Byzantine empire hence the coinage being so pure and made of gold instead of silver or copper or a mixture of silver and brass or copper and brass. So you would make a good profit actually
Great series! Thank you for the content Thersites.
Ευχαριστούμε! All 5 parts of Basil's life are exceptional and very informative. Thank you also for presenting great historical figures without nationalism and myths.
damn it. this video makes me cry, man.
more often than not, it is not the talented man, but the more diligent that gets things done.
yes, Basil was a benefactor of his predecessors, but he could have been a total fool as well, and not care about working his butt off his whole life, but simply walking around the palace wearing his crown and telling servants to give him a foot massage presto! he had a very good opportunity, and he did not waste it. that's saying smth.
about no heirs... guess he really did not care much about such things. all he really wanted was to make sure the empire lives on due to his hard work, he most likely though someone competent enough will eventually follow in his footsteps. but... that's just like saying "i wish the romans would stop having civil wars for maybe the next century or two. that would be nice." well... nope.
btw, what disease did he have? i mean, for so many years on campaign during those days, i'm impressed he lived as long as he did.
and about him pressing his brother to restart the baby making business... i really think he had bigger concerns. it was his brother's life, and unlike Basil, Constantin wasted his. also, it could be said that he should have pushed Basil into a brothel and pay some women in there to dry him up, but... he was too much of a baby prince that never grew up. really sad to see ppl born with such power simply uninterested. but they fail to pass it along to another, double the fault.
Thank you so much for continuing the series Thersites 🙏
I've been reading Byzantine history since I heard about it by reading the decline and fall in the late 60s. The work about Basil II it's my favorite of all your documentaries and fascinating... Thank you I've read MichaelPsellos I never came across the anecdote about being reprimanded and his court... at least I don't remember it thank you
Great video. Love to hear you pronounce Basil correctly too!!!
As a Bulgar-slayer-lover, this whole series has been a real treat!
Thank you for putting the effort into it.
Come to Bulgaria and say it in public, and see what will happen to you, on internet is easy.
@@TheMysteryman316 it's been a thousand years, you gotta let that go.
Let's slay all bulgars
Excellent analysis to conclude Basil.
what a beast he was 67 years old when he died and he still wanted to campaign in sicily
Sweet series.
Thanks!
Bro Your videos are so much heart touching and full with glory of history so I love your videos so much . It is a common thing that your videos are able to win the heart of any one so I want that you should make a video on Skanderbeg . Please answer me when will you make a video on Skanderbeg and please keep it up I am admiring your hard work and determination which help you make that type Great video
One of the best Roman Emperors 😎
Or the worst... depending on your perspective.
@@dayanbalevski4446 not really, cruel and greatness can be binary, the bulgars deserved punishment, maybe not to the extent that Basil II gave them, but he had enough of them, and destroyed them
@@bumsmeller7950 We are still here... he didn't destroy shit.
Anyway, can you explain why we deserved punishment... this is fascinating.
I mean, they became an irrelevant shіthоlе and they haven't recovered to this day, so I would say he really wrecked them well.
@@dayanbalevski4446 bro you don't see the irish or welsh calling Caesar a monster 2000 years later, who cares?
Alexis 1st began a new era in 1081, with the post-Basil era ending in 1071
Please make a full video on Al Hakim! We all need to know more about him!
"...this practice was something he enjoyed 😇
Or at least tought was effective..."
Basil, dude, getting yourself a girlfriend can do wonders for your mood, should try it sometimes
Thanks man was good.
So cool
Trying to ambush the guy that always look up for ambush ... Giorgi paid the price
How could you mix up Pandulf II and Pandulf IV
I cant wait for George Meniakes to be covered
Hey Thersites, recently discovered your channel, and I'm really enjoying... Well, just about all of your videos lol, really great stuff! I know this is a bit direct and off-topic, but do you think you and Sean could recommend me some of your favorite strategy games that take place in the Napoleonic and American Civil War eras? I'm really interested in exploring the warfare of these time periods in a fun way. They can be both board and video games. If not, no worries, I'm just happy to watch your vids. :)
Basil II should be remembered also as the destroyer of the Byzantine empire. He literally assassinated the Macedonian dynasty. He was paranoid and forbade his nieces from marrying, fearing potential challengers to his throne. The empire became a victim of his success. The absent of a natural successor meant that no other ruler had full legitimacy from the people to lead or make necessary changes in the empire in the years that followed. The result was a long process of decline and the beginning of the end at the Battle of Manzikert, only about 45 years after Basil’s death.
Basil II had it for the aristocrats. They were bad news. They had too much power and showed too little competence for it. His entire life he 'fought' to keep them in check. The army was poorly trained, smth that was their responsibility to maintain. The policy was to use more mercenaries and keep the money meant for training in the treasury. This started before Basil II's rule. Thus, the army was quite dependant on mercenaries, even in Basil II's time. It became worse by the time Romanos Diogenes's days. In fact, the guy had so little to work with, his army was mostly mercenary made. Before the Manzikert debacle, there was a revolt caused by such mercenaries which was a pain in the rear to fix. Before the battle itself, lots of the mercenaries paid to fight just bailed, Romanos's army was diminished from the start. Couple that with the roman army which was poorly trained, and poorly equiped(sounds like my boss, make current workers work harder to compensate for crappy equipment and lack of manpower to get profits), add to that a misunderstood signal and betrayal from the Doukas... and you get Manzikert. Had the army been kept in good shape, equipment provided, mercenaries kept out of imperial strategy(they proved a problem even after the Manzikert happened, those that bailed to fight started to plunder the countryside, they had to be put down with other mercs - which ended up in defeat, which resulted in an alliance with the turks to beat them, which resulted in the acknowledgement of turk gains in Anatolia)... had all this been different, the romans would have lived for longer.
Thing is...Basil II acted in the interest of the empire, i think. Had he known what WE know, he would have gone a different route. He did things according to the situation during his time. Fear of betrayals was common. Justinian feared Belisarius, Nikephoros Phokas feared his nephew, and pretty much everyone else. Such fear ages you prematurely. The REAL failure in my opinion was Constantin VIII. He did not have a male heir, he did not make sure their dynasty was kept strong, he kicked the bucket 3years after his brother and left his daughters to figure things out. And they failed too. All a bunch of consequences. To say Basil II destroyed the empire from not leaving a male heir while having a brother and 2 nieces is like saying the Western Roman Empire collapsed because of barbarian invasions or that Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg. There is lots more to a disaster than one single bad decision.
The beginning of the end was not Manzikert but the sack of Constantinople, which was the heart of the empire, at 1204 by the crusaders.
@@HappyLlama the loss of Manzikert meant the loss of Anatolia, the recruiting ground for their best soldiers. Without it, the romans could no longer recruit impressive armies as before, becoming just a regional power. They tried to reclaim it, but after Manuel Komnenos... none were worthy of the challenge. Coupled with the fall of the Komneni and the rise of Angeloi... the empire was so divided, that they had civil war, Trebizond broke away just shortly before the 4th crusade came about, and most of their forces were away protecting the frontiers. Although i am not sure anyone would have arrived to save the good-for-nothing emperor, who took off with the treasury. The sacking was what literally killed the hope of survival for the romans. It provided immense wealth to the crusaders, while the venetians and genoans simply helped themselves with some nice islands. So... for the battle at Manzikert, the romans could gather around 50thousand soldiers(many mercenaries, but they could be paid so wealth was still a factor). After 1204, the romans could muster only several thousands at best, the nicaenians stripped everything they had to rebuild Constantinople as much as possible, which left them broke and the east exposed for ottoman conquest and forever losing Anatolia to the turks. And we all know how that ended. Sad story, really.
@@ragael1024 It is ok to have a different opinion but I still believe that it was not as significant as the sack of the greatest city at least the medieval world had ever seen. Don't get me wrong, it was still a great loss. Truth is though the Empire had many triumphs and great losses like this one in the past and always recovered like in this case. Anatolia was still not lost in its entirety after the loss at Manzikert. Strong troops could still be recruited by some regions there and Thrace was one of the most important regions for recruitment. Don't forget that Constantinople itself had a very large population from all over the empire. The empire was still mighty for many years to come. Only when Constantinople fell the Empire crumbled and lost its prestige. It was the centre for many operations and everything started from there. As long as this city was intact the empire could survive anything like it did in the past. All the enemies of Byzantium throughout the years were aware of this and this is one basic reason they made historic campaigns like Persians, Arabs etc. and did not just try to occupy Anatolia.
@@HappyLlama not disagreeing. It's just that we call it differently. The battle at Manzikert was not the worst military loss for them. They recovered from much worse. However, after Manzikert, they deposed Romanos IVth, and had a 10year long civil war. Who protected Anatolia during that time? Almost nobody. The seljuks invaded. When finally the romans finished fighting each other, they could no longer raise the strong army they could before. Most of Anatolia was gone, and Anatolia was a tough environment, perfect for tough soldiers. Mainland Greece was a last resort for them, and Thrace was filled with bulgars. Also, in those days they mismanaged the army so much, they stopped spending money for its training and maintenance, and simply rely on mercenaries should the situation arise. Also, it's about taxation. No ppl to tax, no land to grow food... and yes, they pretty much lost all of Anatolia, during the 1st Crusade they managed to recapture Nicaea, which was very close to Constantinople, and under seljuk rule. By the end of Manuel Komnenos's reign, they managed to recapture half of inland Anatolia and the coast line. But why it is agreed that Manzikert was the beginning of the end? Because every empire has its ups and downs. And a recovery has to have a foundation. The loss of Constantinople was the loss of that foundation, together with too much land to the latins, and also it alienated many of their former subjects, resulting in split duchies and despotates that never wanted to rejoin the empire after that, or simply became vassals to other powers, like Venice. Anatolia was recruiting ground from lots of farmers. Farmers grew food too, so meant loss of feeding and taxing ground. Manzikert was just a military loss. What came qfter was the issue. Constantinople...was the killing blow.
Just wondering when will be the next Byzantine video. probably about the Komnenos?
Next one will be Romanus III and it will probably be this week or over the weekend.
@@ThersitestheHistorian wow thank you so much for reply! I really appreciate it. More blessings to you man. Keep doing this is God's work.
Was he an S tier emperor?
He was the best
I wouldnt say the best but he was certainly one of the best
@@Cecilia-ky3uw Whos better? Heraclious and Justinian surely not.
@@Aliexei personally would say that Heraclius contends along with one of the komnenian emperors but thats just me
After accounting for length of reign, I still think John I Tzimisces was equal or better than Basil. He could easily have accomplished everything that Basil accomplished if John had ruled for 40-50 years. In fact, John had already effectively conquered Bulgaria and secured the East before Basil came to power. So there really isnt any argument that John couldnt do what Basil did. John's skill in diplomacy and getting along with people was just another bonus that Basil couldnt match.
Agreed, and I wonder if Basil weakening the Eastern military families is what paved the way for the Seljuks.
Getting Varangians throught diplomacy is far better than anything Tzimisces has done and I fucking love Tzimisces
@@natehensley8810. Basil's biggest mistake in the East was conquering Georgia and annexing it into the Byzantine Empire. Georgia had been a useful buffer on the eastern frontier. Basil basically wrecked it and never bothered to re-fortify it (Basil had other priorities at the time). But this would open the door to the Turks down the road. Basil probably didn't know much about the Turks. The first major encounter with the Turks wouldn't happen until the 1040s during the reign of Constantine IX Monomachos.
Did the themes still use previous military ranks such as centurion?
No
@@der110 what did they replace centurions with then?
@@TheManCaveYTChannel strolen.com/viewing/Byzantine_Military_Ranks
@@der110 Wrong Centurion was still used. Kentarchos served as division Commanders.
03:46 here you say that Giorgi was ruler of Abkhazia. at that time Georgia already had been formed. David III of tao adopted Bagrat III (which was the heir of Abkhazia) and made the foundation for him to unite all the Georgian kingdoms and principalitys. Giorgi was the son of Bagrat and king of the unified Georgia.
If he's the best they could do its no wonder that they couldn't restore the empire
👍👍👍
3sitesgang
Lmao
Oh no we're running out of emperor's ;n;
Wow I didn't realize that Al-Hakim who is admired by Druzes, is contemporary with Basil, small world
Exellent video as aways, many thanks. Just a quick question, would you be willing to consider yourself friends with someone on the conservative right? I mean I realised the content creator is a leftist but to what extend? Just curious to what point you embrace discussing and freedom of speech.
in my view, his death on Dec 15th, 1025, meant the Empire's decline had begun by the morning of Dec 16th. He was the last Great Great Ruler of the Empire!. the period from Dec 16th1025 to 1057 was the decline of the Ruling House and 1057 to 1453 comes the period of the Comnenus, Ducas[perhaps worst family to rule?] Palaeologus period. with the Latin Emperors period and the states period with Epirus, Thessalonica, Thessaly, the empire of Trebizond, the empire of Nicaea, principality of Theodoro and from 1261 the restored[but weaker] empire, the period from the death of Basil 2nd run 1025to 1475.-How are you going to cover the years 1025to 1057?.their is Basil brother and then the period of the two sisters.in my view, while the dearth Of Basil began the finally slow decline, the reign of Isaac 1st began the last era of the history of the East Roman[Greek] Empire poiod[1057-1475]-please keep up your great work!.-oh it's of note that after 1203-1205 the empire[state] was never united as parts never came under one ruler!.in fact, could the dearth of the ERE be dated to 1203-1205 ad the period of 1205-1475 as the post Empire period?[the states period?]-could be called the disunity period
Thersites do you play Attila Total War 1212 AD mod? Lol
Did he conquer more territory than Justinian? Doubtful. But when the empire's fortunes go down after Justinian, it's because he 'overextended the empire'. After Basil, it's because 'his successors sucked'. Double standard favouring wrestlers over pigminders.
What?
Good point
Justinian bankrupted the empire. Basil filled the coffers.
My man took a plague, a volcanic eruption with resulting famine, and an earthquake to the face and still increased revenues from 5 to 6 million solidi.
@@jacksambuck67 because he just conquered a lot of land? Not like he was any good at that lmao he basically sabotaged his best general at every opportunity. Belisarius never got the funds and supplies that were necessary and he still conquered Italy and North Africa for Justinian. What did Justinian do? Never trusted him AT ALL. Also he was a pussy,he was planning on running away from Constantinople until his wife beat some sense into him. The only good that came out of his reign was the legal codex. He was a good emperor but nothing compared to Basil II
Armenian Warrior
Basil II was never Armenian
@@Michael_the_Drunkard 🫦👁️
Alexander the Great is credited with the spread of Hellenism. Shouldn't Basil II be given some credit for the creation of Slavic culture? After all, he helped convert the Slavic people to Christianity, by sending priests and monks but also artisans to help create their impressive and unique architecture and artwork. Why not add that to his legacy?
His role in the creation of Slavic culture reminds me more of Caesar's role in the eventual formation of the Helvetian Confederacy in that he forced his will on a people group and forever altered the course of their history.
Poland and Czech were already christian before he became sole ruler
I meant to say Eastern Slavic culture of course.
WHAT HAPPENED TO AL-HAKIM?!?!?! Lmao
wounder, if he had live just long enough to add Sicily and its offshore islands to the Empire again and put his Italian border north to Naples, would this had led to war with the HRE&Egypt?..would this had started the decline while he was still alive?[like with the Emperor Heruluis [610-641] and if he were sususful in Italy, how long would rule of the Empire lasted?.perhaps he died just at the right time?. while I have no doubt of his successes if he had lived, it may have led to things he could not have foreseen and thus in my view he went at the rights of his power and glory gave him a better ending than Herulius got
Basil the little Hitler is a better title.
How exactly was he a little hitler ?
????
Bournoutian, George (2002). A Concise History of the Armenian People. Mazda Publishers. p. 89. ISBN 9781568591414. ....the later Macedonian dynasty, according to most Byzantinists, was of Armenian origin as well. [...] Ironically, it was this same Armenian dynasty which was chiefly responsible for the breakup of the Bagratuni kingdom.
The important Macedonian dynasty was founded by Basil I (867-86), an Armenian.
Chahin, Mack. The Kingdom of Armenia: A History. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2001, p. 232 ISBN 0-7007-1452-9
The reasons for this stunning reversal of fortune are still disputed, though some credit is surely due to the much-maligned but effective rulers of the Isaurian dynasty , Leo III (r. 717-41) and Constantine V (r. 741-75), who stabilized the empire’s borders after the catastrophic losses of the seventh century. 7 Since the founder of the Macedonian dynasty, Basil I (r. 867-86), was a Thracian peasant of Armenian origin, the term “Macedonian dynasty” is something of a misnomer, but it is used so ubiquitously in secondary scholarship and in the sources themselves as well that is pointless to attempt to replace it with something else.
Chitwood, Zachary (2017). Byzantine Legal Culture and the Roman Legal Tradition, 867-1056. Cambridge University Press. p. 18. ISBN 9781107182561.
Alexander Vasiliev argues that "The majority of scholars consider Basil an Armenian who had settled in Macedonia, and speak of his dynasty as the Armenian dynasty. But in view of the fact that there were many Armenians and Slavs among the population of Macedonia, it might be correct to assume that Basil was of mixed Armeno-Slavonic origin."
Vasiliev, Alexander (1964). History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, Volume 1. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 301. ISBN 9780299809256.
His father is widely considered to be of Armenian origin.
Whittow, Mark (1996). The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025. University of California Press. p. 201. ISBN 9780520204966. Four emperors - Leo V, Basil I, Romanos I and John Tzimiskes - seem to have been Armenian, as well as the empress Theodora, Theophilos' wife...”
Rosser, John Hutchins (2012). "Armenia". Historical Dictionary of Byzantium. Scarecrow Press. p. 56. ISBN 9780810875678. ...a number of important military leaders and civil administrators were Armenian, including emperors Leo V, Basil I, Romanos I Lekapenos, and John I Tzimiskes.”
Treadgold 1997, p. 455: "Though of Armenian stock, Basil was called the Macedonian because he had been born in the Theme of Macedonia...."
Evans, Helen C. (2018). "Armenians and Their Middle Age". Armenia: Art, Religion, and Trade in the Middle Ages. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 34. ISBN 9781588396600. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (r. 610-640) was the son of an Armenian... [...] In 867 Basil I (r. 867-886), whose father was also Armenian...”
That Basil I, the founder of the most brilliant dynasty of the Byzantine empire, was indeed Armenian and Armenian on both sides, can be regarded as an established fact."
Charanis 1963, p. 35.
The Macedonian dynasty ( 867 - 1056 ) marked the apogee of the medieval Byzantine Empire . Its founder, Basil, a peasant born in Macedonia but of Armenian descent
"Macedonian Dynasty." Oxford Reference.
starting with the Vita Basilii, let us work through those sources advertising an Armenian ancestry for Basil I in chronological order.
indication that Basil was of Armenian descent and that he came originally from Macedonia; in other words, he was a Balkan Armenian.
Greenwood, T. (2018). Basil I, Constantine VII and Armenian Literary Tradition in Byzantium. In T. Shawcross & I. Toth (Eds.), Reading in the Byzantine Empire and Beyond (pp. 447-466). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108289993.023
The Byzantine emperor Basil I (ca. 812-886), also known as Basil the Macedonian, ruled from 867 to 886. Despite his unsavory rise to power, he was a gifted statesman who gave the empire new vigor and began its most durable dynasty.
Of obscure Armenian parentage, Basil was born in Thrace.
The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4 (1923). See also George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (1940; trans. 1956; rev. ed. 1969); The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4 (2d ed. 1966), pt. 1, edited by J. M. Hussey; and Romilly Jenkins, Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries, A.D. 610-1071 (1966).
BASIL I. (d. 886), known as the "Macedonian", Roman emperor in the East, was born of a family of Armenian (not Slavonic) descent, settled in Macedonia.
Vita Basilii, by his grandson Constantine VII. (bk. v. of the Continuation of Theophanes, ed. Bonn); Genesius (ed. Bonn); Vita Euthymii, ed. De Boor (Berlin, 1888). Of the Arabic sources Tabari is the most important.
MODERN WoRKs. - Finlay, History of Greece, vol. ii. (Oxford, 1877); Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vols. v. and vi. (ed. Bury, London, 1898); Hergenrother, Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel, vol. ii. (Regensburg, 1867). (J. B. B.)
Although he was technically of Armenian descent, Basil acquired the moniker “the Macedonian” because Armenia was in the theme of Macedonia at the time of Basil's birth around the year 811. peasants who were forcibly brought to Bulgaria in 813 under the Bulgar Kahn Krum.
Eldridge, Kelsey, "Byzantine Emperors and Old Testament Kings: Contextualizing the Paris Psalter as a Product of Ninth and Tenth Century Byzantine Imperial Ideology" (2011). Summer Research. Paper 131.
Nobody cares bro he was roman
@@wankawanka3053 yep. Roman of Armenian origin
@@kaldirdimgobegi Basil II wasn't Armenian and Basil I was only half-Armenian.
@@kaldirdimgobegi he was not lol