🎥 Join our UA-cam members and patrons to unlock exclusive content! Our community is currently enjoying deep dives into the First Punic War, Pacific War, history of Prussia, Italian Unification Wars, Russo-Japanese War, Albigensian Crusade, and Xenophon’s Anabasis. Become a part of this exclusive circle: ua-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals and Paypal paypal.me/kingsangenerals as well!
@@redterrorproductions1373 You right There’s really no difference between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine empire Ones just like way way more Greek than the other lmao
Usurping seemed to be the favourite pastime over there 😑 Such an immensely petty and pathetic display of reckless megalomania, instead of fighting together to save the greatest empire in the world 🤦🤦
Kings & Generals casually being one of the few channels to explain Justinians provincial reforms in the middle of their video about Byzantine civil wars. What a flex.
What’s truly amazing is how long the Empire lasted, despite being surrounded by unrelenting and powerful enemies bent on it’s destruction, and all the civil wars.
@@liming7827 In Anatolia the Greeks of ethnic-Greek ancestry (i.e. Greek speaking Christians of ethnic-Greek genetic ancestry) where in the western and northern coastline - and there Greeks did not assimilate into the Ottoman islamic culture. Ottomans assimilated the populations in the center, south and east where most Greek-speaking Christians were for the most of non-ethnic-Greek ancestry. Was that by accident? I leave it to you to ponder.
Great job with this video! I would love to see videos on both the Arian Controversy (which culminated in the Council of Nicea and resulted in the conversion of the Goths to Arianism, an offshoot from Christianity) and the Greek vs Oriental Orthodox split following the Council of Chalcedon in 451 since these religious disputes played a major prominent role in dividing the Eastern Empire. They frequently come up in discussions regarding religious history but are rarely discussed in the broader context of the history of the time.
They truly had the means to retake at least most of the provinces back, and they lasted almost as long as the original Roman Empire. Imagine what they could’ve accomplished with that type of military might without being handicapped by civil wars.
@@themercifulguard3971 Not really, it sure was more peaceful but the Byzantines had a lot of success against the ummayads, 100.000 ummayads died only at the siege of Constantinople
@@TheIronChancellor The civil wars got substantially worse later into the medieval period when the Umayyads were already usurped by the Abbasids, who were fragmented by this time. There's a reason why the Battle of Manzikert wasn't just a wartime disaster for the Romans, but also a political one. You had petty Islamic kingdoms squabbling amongst themselves while the Roman emperor was dealing with the Tornikios Rebellion. Then the Turks came and initiated major conquest of Roman territories while all that happened.
Excellent content as always ! The notable work “Chronographia” by Michael Psellos (Psellus), prominent Byzantine Historian and Imperial Courtier to several Byzantine Emperors (11th century), is one of the best accounts and series of biographies from emperor Basil II to Nikephoros III. A unique and valuable source on the history of the 11th century Byzantine Empire. Truly, a historic and academic treasure.
Kings and generals another brilliant video. I love roman and middle age history. It is so fasinating. We know it takes a lot of time and hard work to make these videos. So we always appreciate your hard work and dedication to make these videos. Love and huge fan of you from Sri Lanka 🇱🇰🤝🇺🇸
As a reader of byzantine history I think this video does as much justice as one can on the topic of byzantine internal instability as one can in 18 minutes. It's hard to cover over a 1000 years of history but you guys definitely did a decent job here explaing the topic for a audience that might not be super familiar with byzantine history. Nobody does infighting better than the bzyatium babyyyyy😎
@@thorsday121As jacobjones said, for all of the corruption, civil wars, parasitic nobles and incompetent emperors,the eastern roman empire managed to crawl into the 1400s through its legacy, geographical and strategic postion, military knowhow, bureaucracy ( when it isnt a corrupt and useless moneypit) and competent emperors. Without the civil wars themselves, who knows how much more longer they could have survived
These videos would be exponentially better if you put the year on the screen when a specific event happens, or mention the year when you talk about the event. It's so hard to tell when any of this stuff happened. You sometimes mention the century but you rarely (or never) say the year stuff happens.
Keep it rolling sir! Keep the Byzantine content running! We would love a new series about Theophilus, John Korkouas, John Tsimiskes, or John and Manuel Komnenos.
I think this video focuses more on the militaristic and factional disputes, while ignoring other factors, religious disputes being the most notable I can think of. Many civil wars were, either in name or in fact, started by differences in religious creeds and doctrines. See: Eikonomachia, Nestorianism, Arianism, Monophysitism, Schism...
@@KingsandGenerals and do not forget , that millions of Greeks died because they did not want to be christians! The majority of the Greeks want it to stay to their Greek religion. Hundrends of thousands of Greeks died in Fire. Hundrends of thousends were killed like animals to special bouther houses made for the Greeks. There was a Greek bouther house at Skithupolis. They put the Greeks inside and kill them , by taking slowly slowly their skin and then slowly slowly cut them in pieces. It was special bucher houses made for Greeks. The Real Roman emperos made those bucher houses. To the cities that there were no Greek bucher houses , the real roman soldiers together with Greek prists were berning the Greeks alive inside the Greek cities! It was much more worst than the middle ages of europe. The middle ages of Greece was from 330 A.D. until 590 A.D. At that time there was a real east roman empire with real roman emperos. The Greek empire started at 600 A.D. The million deaths of the Greeks was to the period of the real roman emperors!
Ahhh the Byzantine empire, a huge medieval empire that is also the longest lasting empire in history, while also fighting unstoppable wars with formidable enemies, despite that they had an 80% victory percentage and were probably stronger than all of western Europe👏👏
@@athanasiusdicia117 correct!... the name was adopted after the fall... just like the symbol, the double headed eagle was never a symbol of the Eastern Roman Empire [that was anything but ''Greek'' as they say...] instead it was an ancient Mongolian symbol... [that little piece of history burns!...]
@@user-McGiver The double headed eagle was in fact two opposite facing eagles, those of Zeus, meeting at Delphi. It was literally the remnant of that myth.
I can't help but find similarities demonstrated in the Byzatine Empire and in ours. Instead of fighting with masts and javlines as did the ancient generals, today's politicians fight with money and filibusters and sweet talks pandering to voters. No wonder the ideal state to Plate is never direct democracy.
People often think it was the Turks finished the Eastern Rome but they clearly did to themselves way before the Turks arrived. And the 4th crusade was the final nail to the coffin. Turks just swept away the survivors
The things Oghuz Turks destroyed at it's prime was the Crusades and Serbians not the Byzantines, Crusade of 1101 crippled all the plans because how bad it went for the Crusaders. Similar goes for Serbians too maybe you can include Hungarians they were not at their prime but they were too pretty strong at that time.
The Turks actually waited for Byzantines to fight among themselves while they were fighting with Serbs, Bulgars, and other balkanic nations and cleaning their way into the Balkans... then, they circled Byzantine and captured it. which is a brilliant strategy.
"What if they had done X, the empire could have survived" "What if they had done Y, the empire could have survived" My Romans in Christ... STOP INFIGHTING
Thanks for the video! One note: I find it hard to follow the chronology sometimes with just the emporers names as landmark. Maybe the current discussed year or the time of the Reign could be displayed in a corner in future videos of similar kind with a huge time frame?
the Byzantine Empire is basically Rome 2.0, so naturally it had all of Rome Strengths, like adaptability and economic power house. But it also had all of Rome's weaknesses, ie internal strife that leads to civil wars that slowly but surely weakened the empire in the long run, just like the old days of Rome.
@@darkorodic638 correct!... the name was adopted after the fall... just like the symbol, the double headed eagle was never a symbol of the Eastern Roman Empire [that was anything but ''Greek'' as they say...] instead it was an ancient Mongolian symbol... [that little piece of history burns!...]
wtf is this argument "it's basically X state 2.0 so it had strenghts and weaknesses of it", how does it work in your mind? Real life works like a game with a specific name of country gets buffs and debuffs? And it can't reform/change? France is basically Frankish empire 2.0, with its strenghts in generating strong leaders and weakness in dividing after leader dies
A guy takes the throne. "yay" 3 dudes pop up in rebellion. A random 4th guy takes the throne instead. What am I watching? lol But I love it. Great episode.
Its interesting how their enemies steadily kept encroaching on their borders, whitling the empire away, but still they kept rebelling and starting civil wars
"The Empire, Long Divided, Must Unite; Long United, Must Divide" The Roman Empire, including the Eastern Roman Empire always valued its republican tradition where by merit a leader had the right to govern but in practice this can be an invitation to anarchy and because of that they experienced numerous civil wars throughout its history due to factors such as succession disputes, power struggles, political instability and military ambitions. But the Romans also had economic disparities, and regional aspirations. These conflicts could have been avoided through clear succession plans, political reforms, military reforms, economic and social reforms, granting regional autonomy, and prioritizing diplomacy and negotiation. Implementing these measures could have reduced the occurrence and severity of civil wars, leading to a more stable and cohesive empire.
This video was a very interesting and well done summary of bizantine civil wars, I just felt the lack of more dates on the screen to better follow the narration between the differnt eras of bizantine history
The reason why Rome is my favourite Empire is , it had 1000+ civil wars , surrounded by enemies, bounced back at dire times, plagued to death and lasted 2206 years.
@@ORION00119 He said Empire though so the gentleman above is correct, as an empire it lasted 1218 years (since it fell to the crusaders in 1204) using this guys logic Persia lasted for 2657 years
@@williamrobert9898 that's likely because he mostly sees Rome as the Empire i mean u don't get ppl mentioning the Kingdom at all when they mention Rome in general, could also be an error on the them. Not to mention 2206 years is the exact time from its founding to the fall of Constantinople which means he meant the whole thing.
A great video...... a very good concentration of details that clear the way to understand the roman civil wars .... as always you guys are doing an insane job ... everything is perfect including the narration as always ... got my full support !!!!!
This video clarified many things about byzantine politics for me. At the start I tought it was the komnenian military system the cause of the fall of the empire, but seems like the cause was even deeper.
Dynatoi is the plural in Greek for Powerful, Capable and/or Able 9:54. Of course I’m sure understanding “exactly” what it meant within the historical context is more complicated than a simple translation I suppose.
Can you please put the scroll that shows the year that something happens up much much more? It really helps to put things into perspective, when its easy to see exactly when something happened.
is it possible that the meritocacy that led to the civil wars also led to the consistent competent emperor's rising to power who were competent enough to fight off Byzantium's myriad enemies for a millennia?
It is characteristic of the Greeks throughout all our history. We are not aggressive or hostile to other nations but civilized, but because we are very anarchist and free spirits with a strong sense of "Being", of our ideas or opinions etc. ("selfish" as one would say more populist in everyday language) we fight between ourselves. Even in every day modern Greek culture when a Greek is agree he/she usually says "Eh! Do you know who I AM ? " (it is something like a motto, or "meme" of everyday culture) On one hand this is not something good but on the other that characteristic is exactly what gave birth to our nation's greatness, our strong sense of "human subject", of identity (our very early national consiousnes) , of "Being"... of freedom, of chaos...of "Wow, ok that is very nice that we created, now let's burn the whole thing down" 😄 We are Nietzscheic.. nation Ps. But for that exactly reason also no one outsider and nothing can destroy us even if we live in the most "centered" and geostrategical place in the world, crossroad of civilizations for thousands years etc.etc. The strong sense of Being... But, between this times of civil war there are times of deep harmony and cultural explosion / creation and then the same pattern again. Creation and destruction, creation and destruction, exactly like in the ancient Greek mythology...(Khronos takes the throne of Uranus and turns the world and it's laws "upside down", then Zeus takes the throne of Khronos the same happens, then Prometheus threatens the throne of Zeus, then the last Greek god Christ also threatens the throne of a Roman emperor - he gives the command that all little child's lately borned to be killed - and turns Rome "upside down" etc.etc)
I think you could draw so many parallels between the slow decline of the Byzantine empire due to the “screw everyone and everything as long as I am the king of the ashes” attitude of the elites and the current state of so many western countries. At least I see it here in the U.K.
It’s very easy to draw parallels, but we have to remember Byzantine history lasted 1,000 years. Assuming we don’t get nuked off the planet, I doubt we will see much radical change in our lifetimes.
For me it was the part about the elites preferring a weak emperor that can be controlled over a strong emperor that made me "ah yes, American politics of the last few decades..."
"These Denatoi were families who had acquired vast tracts of land in Anatolia during the 7th & 8th centuries." All I could think of is Monty Python's Holy Grail: Lord of Swamp Castle: "What's wrong with Princess Lucky? She's beautiful! She's got great, huge. . . . tracts of land!" Son: "But I don't want land!" "Listen son! We live in a bloody swamp! We need all the land we can get!" 😆
Roman Empire's greatest weakness is that they had to pretend they were a republic till the end. They couldn't tolerate the idea of a ruler passing office to his son. But let's face it, kingdoms, as bad as they were, were much more stable, because there was a clear line of succession instead of "hey, the throne is now for the grabbing, let the games begin".
The fragmentation of Byzantine imperial power because of the thematic system sounds like what happened to feudal Japan wherein the shogun's held more power than the emperor.
You mentioned it in passing, but could you do a video on the Samaritan Revolt? I don't think there are nearly enough videos on UA-cam exploring their history and you guys would no doubt do it justice!
There's a common pattern between Alparslan and Attila both inflicted heavy defeats against the Romans in Manzikert and Ravenna respectively and died just the year after at the height of their power
Battle of Manzikert was not so important because the empire took the lost lands back and won against the turks. The big problem that destroyed the empire was the fourth crusade. Romans lost to many battles but always where coming back stronger
@@iwannisbalaouras1687 The Battle of Manzikert paved way for Crusades and the Turkification of Anatolia which laid the seeds of the Ottoman empire which conquered Constantinople ending Rome and triggering the Age of Discovery which shaped much of the modern world,... A battle can only be this impactful
@@iwannisbalaouras1687Precisely. The Byzantines took back the most important parts of Anatolia. The Turks weren't much of a problem any more. For the Byzantines the crusaders were a much more dangerous threat than the Turks
Turks indeed had a decisive role in triggering historical major events like the Migration Period, Crusades, shaping the history of Balkans, Islamization of Northern India, Age of Discovery as well as ending the Middle Ages with the conquest of Constantinople, fall of the Roman Empire.
While the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 AD, the Eastern Roman Empire-better known as the Byzantine Empire-thrived for nearly 1,000 more years. Its capital, Constantinople, became one of the wealthiest and most influential cities in the world. Withstanding numerous sieges, Constantinople’s strategic location and advanced defenses, including the famous 'Greek Fire,' kept invaders at bay until its fall in 1453. This marked the end of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Ottoman Empire, forever changing the course of history.
The Battle of Manzikert paved way for Crusades and the Turkification of Anatolia which laid the seeds of the Ottoman empire which conquered Constantinople ending Rome and triggering the Age of Discovery which shaped much of the modern world,... A battle can only be this impactful
The battle of Manzikert washn't so important, fourth crusade destroyed the empire after that the empire was a shell of its former self. >> Komnhnian restoration
Reading about the Palaiologos civil wars of the 14th century had me like: (to the Palaiologans) "We had a good thing you stupid son of a bitch! We had Thessaly! We had Macedonia! We had everything we ever needed! And it all ran like clockwork! You could have slowly expanded and taken back the pre-1204 land. It was perfect! But no! You just had to blow it up! You, and your civil wars and alliances! You just had to be the Roman! If you'd kept your navy, paid the Catalan Company, we'd all be eating souvlaki right now!"
I am a Turkish American. Same problem. Took a DNA test and learned that Turkish people are mixed from the Byzantine people and Central Asians, so I was like, I probably should know this history…
Why So Many Civil Wars? We're Greeks, we can't agree amongst ourselves most of the time, but when necessary we become united so that we can build a state to squabble in peace. Queue 3500 years of Hellenism with this ad nauseam.
I like civil wars in the Eastern Roman Empire. Thanks to one of them, Bulgaria made its first territorial expansion south of the Balkan Mountains. Good, civil wars.
I think we should focus on why they don't have the law for successor. Personally,it is clear that the Repulic was successed by the medival Rome,even the Repulic transformed to be a military dictatorship system,the name and the system of the Repulic still exited in the Rome. When Auguest estabulished the kind of military dictatorship regime,he depended on different tilte and military to control the power,therefore we can see the situation about someone who can take the support of military,he can be the emperor. This is not only in the medieval Rome,this is comomon in any dictatorship regime.
Not so many, but because empire was so monumental, it held for hundreds of years, even with those civil wars. Take Arab sultanats, caliphates, and Emirates for example, civil war caused many empires turn into ashes. So we know about many civil wars not because there were so many, but because of empire holding after civil wars.
The rashidun caliphate, the ummayad caliphate and the Abbasid caliphate together lasted for 300 to 400 years, the Byzantine empire was at its territorial height for 300 years
@@TheIronChancellor You comparing dynasties to an empire, and not just how long empire last, but last with its territorial height. ERE was empire from 395, to 1204, 800+ years of empire, that's more than impressive.
@@sircatangry5864 It's not just dynasties because a caliphate isn't an empire it works a bit different and it is difficult to explain, but I think that the abbasid caliphate is a different state to the rashidun caliphate
@@sircatangry5864 It's VERY complicated but the rashiduns are the heirs of Muhammad, the ummayads from caliph Muawiyah and the Abbasids from al Abbas I may be wrong but it sounds right
Byzantine 1: "Hey, did you hear that our entire civilisation is under an existential threat?" Byzantine 2: "oh yeah, and the emperor is doing his best to combat it right?" Byzantine 1: "Yup, you know what that means" Byzantine 1 and 2 proceed to draw their daggers and blind the most capable emperor in a century
The period between the death of Basil II in 1025 and the coronation of Alexios I in 1081 proved to be the most crucial point to the long-term existence of the empire. I could only imagine, what if Basil II had 2 more competent successors before the rise of Alexios. The Turks would have been stop in 1071. Thus, there will be no Crusades. No sacking of 1204
aah division and unification. the entirety of greek history in two words. from troy to the aftermath of WW2 . but as with any state, once it adopts the mantle of ""empire" its doomed to fall. such is life when speaking about states i think. Nevertheless a splendid empire, one which the word meritocracy endured during the dark ages, as well as a place of culture science and trade. Only if we could learn from their mistake and imittate their successes(speaking as a modern greek here....). Excellent video keep it up :).
Why didn't they use the Achaemenid system of holding the family of every active satrap hostage. If the wives and children of the key Byzantine generals and leaders were living in the emperors palace, eating his food, drinking his water and breathing his air, they would think twice before rebelling. Thanks for the video. It was excellent as always.
With that level of intrigues, it's almost as if plunging a knife into your own chest. Sure, they are hostages. But the Emperor also cannot harm them because doing so will incite a revolt. Meaning his powerbase will be even weaker since he has to please all the 'hostages' to make sure they don't incite violence. This will also lead to internal politicking within the palace that will destabilize the empire even further. The clans will use their hostages as casus belli to launch a rebellion and no emperor wants that. The only way to deal with this is to destabilize the clans. The best way to do it is the divide and conquer strategy with something like 'if the head of the family dies, the property will be shared among all his children'. This way, the central court can use politics, schemes and outright confiscation to take back the land and supplant it with centralized governorship instead. This will take at latest 2 generations to complete. It'll take someone like Justinian, Alexios and Heraclius to pull this off, with Byzantiou being attacked like almost yearly...
That's what Romans practiced to an extent with neighboring nations. You may be aware of the case of Arminus and how his roman education helped him plan almost successful rebelion. Considering Rome withdrew from Germania. Doing so to the great houses is pretty decent idea, although it requires consistent indoctrination and requires assurance that hostage is actually valuable for the clan
@@Cheveliery Having hostages is wise if you are in a position of power. But the clans in ERE were in the position of power, not the emperor. It was wiser to just destabilize and take over them. What ERE needed was centralization and consolidation.
This was a great, fresh take on history that also made me think "why has no one ever done Byzantine history through this lens?" I might have liked to see more about how these civil wars were directly linked to territorial losses to enemies--especially during the 4th Crusade--but I suspect that this aspect of Byzantium's decline will be covered in some way in future videos. Other people here have mentioned the religious aspect of many of medieval Rome's civil wars, and I'm glad to hear you guys are planning a video on that, too! I hope you might also touch more upon regionalism in the late Roman Empire and its effect on civil wars and usurpations--which you did touch on briefly in this video, but I want to hear more! E.g. did people from Antioch or Sicily or Cilicia resent centralized rule and put forward their own candidates for the purple in order to get a better deal on taxes or protection?
Love learning more about the Byzantine Empire .I’m always at awe of the thought that had the city of Constantinople survived just 5 or 600 years more we could have actually been able to have “modern” contact with the legacy of the Roman Empire .I know it’s a dumb idea but I always think about it and how cool it would be .hell the fact they survived until they did considering all the turmoil internally and out is itself incredible!
As hilarious as it may sound, you actually still can get a "modern contact" with the legacy of the Roman empire in the form of the Roman Catholic Church. Jokingly one could even argue the Roman Empire had evolved from a mighty empire into the form of a religious institution
The history of the Roman empire, eastern or not, was a series of civil wars, that is, wars of succession. - Significantly, the European peoples that kept more or less the Roman model of succession (namely eastern orthodox states) inherited that kind of instability: Bulgaria, Serbia, Rus states, Wallachia, Moldavia. (Muscovy-Russia became an empire only after the dynastic principle was imposed by the Romanov, through blatant tyranny and even terror, not unlike what some Roman emperors came up with).
I find it absolutely hilarious that roman emperor was both considered to be the God's lieutenant on earth, the living embodiment of the law and somehow also the most likely person to be murdered and usurped at any given point. It's like "Well yes he's incredibly holy and deserves all the power that he has which is how I want everyone to treat me after I kill the current guy." No one stopped to think, "Maybe we would all be better off if we just stopped plunging the realm into civil wars and installing weak leaders to the throne?"
🎥 Join our UA-cam members and patrons to unlock exclusive content! Our community is currently enjoying deep dives into the First Punic War, Pacific War, history of Prussia, Italian Unification Wars, Russo-Japanese War, Albigensian Crusade, and Xenophon’s Anabasis. Become a part of this exclusive circle: ua-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals and Paypal paypal.me/kingsangenerals as well!
I would have paid more attention to the comnenian family system and the palaiologoi civil wars (reasons ecc)
Through which software you make your beautiful map animations & thumbnails?!
@@sadman1005 after effects and Photoshop
@@KingsandGenerals bro write baquates instead of mauri
@@KingsandGenerals Can you make a video about the moorish-byzantine wars in a neutral way?
If I had a dollar for every time the Byzantines fought in a civil war, I'd have enough to fund a mercenary army and usurp the throne of my country
This is an insanely underrated comment
The byzantine empire never existed.
@@redterrorproductions1373
You right
There’s really no difference between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine empire
Ones just like
way way more Greek than the other lmao
Usurping seemed to be the favourite pastime over there 😑 Such an immensely petty and pathetic display of reckless megalomania, instead of fighting together to save the greatest empire in the world 🤦🤦
In game
Kings & Generals casually being one of the few channels to explain Justinians provincial reforms in the middle of their video about Byzantine civil wars. What a flex.
@@MyVanir Channels covering Byzantine anything don't exist... they were Romans.
@@samsmith2635I like my empires when they don't get sacked.
@@samsmith2635 The classification is byzantine. Bugger off greekoid
@@samsmith2635unfortunately they speak Greeks
No longer Latins
@@PerryKobaltSo?
What’s truly amazing is how long the Empire lasted, despite being surrounded by unrelenting and powerful enemies bent on it’s destruction, and all the civil wars.
well it was more powerfull than those states and more cunning
Yeah but it ended pretty badly with the Eastern Romans getting ethnically cleansed from Anatolia by the Turks
@@BahriChihab99 The thing you are saying is not valid. Ethnically cleansed from Anatolia came 19th century. Turks needed christians to pay taxes
@@BahriChihab99It was more like the greeks in anatolia getting assimiliated into the turkish culture
@@liming7827 In Anatolia the Greeks of ethnic-Greek ancestry (i.e. Greek speaking Christians of ethnic-Greek genetic ancestry) where in the western and northern coastline - and there Greeks did not assimilate into the Ottoman islamic culture. Ottomans assimilated the populations in the center, south and east where most Greek-speaking Christians were for the most of non-ethnic-Greek ancestry. Was that by accident? I leave it to you to ponder.
Great job with this video! I would love to see videos on both the Arian Controversy (which culminated in the Council of Nicea and resulted in the conversion of the Goths to Arianism, an offshoot from Christianity) and the Greek vs Oriental Orthodox split following the Council of Chalcedon in 451 since these religious disputes played a major prominent role in dividing the Eastern Empire. They frequently come up in discussions regarding religious history but are rarely discussed in the broader context of the history of the time.
It is a bit terrifying how an empire so torn by civil war, and that regularly, still managed to keep other powerhouses at bay...for a millenia.
They truly had the means to retake at least most of the provinces back, and they lasted almost as long as the original Roman Empire. Imagine what they could’ve accomplished with that type of military might without being handicapped by civil wars.
They were the strongest power in Europe for 900 years from the 400s to 1200s, that says alot about their military
The breakup of the Abbasid Caliphate evened out the internal strife + temporarily eased the eastern frontier for the Byzantines for sure.
@@themercifulguard3971 Not really, it sure was more peaceful but the Byzantines had a lot of success against the ummayads, 100.000 ummayads died only at the siege of Constantinople
@@TheIronChancellor The civil wars got substantially worse later into the medieval period when the Umayyads were already usurped by the Abbasids, who were fragmented by this time. There's a reason why the Battle of Manzikert wasn't just a wartime disaster for the Romans, but also a political one. You had petty Islamic kingdoms squabbling amongst themselves while the Roman emperor was dealing with the Tornikios Rebellion. Then the Turks came and initiated major conquest of Roman territories while all that happened.
Excellent content as always ! The notable work “Chronographia” by Michael Psellos (Psellus), prominent Byzantine Historian and Imperial Courtier to several Byzantine Emperors (11th century), is one of the best accounts and series of biographies from emperor Basil II to Nikephoros III.
A unique and valuable source on the history of the 11th century Byzantine Empire. Truly, a historic and academic treasure.
Kings and generals another brilliant video. I love roman and middle age history. It is so fasinating. We know it takes a lot of time and hard work to make these videos. So we always appreciate your hard work and dedication to make these videos. Love and huge fan of you from Sri Lanka 🇱🇰🤝🇺🇸
As a reader of byzantine history I think this video does as much justice as one can on the topic of byzantine internal instability as one can in 18 minutes. It's hard to cover over a 1000 years of history but you guys definitely did a decent job here explaing the topic for a audience that might not be super familiar with byzantine history.
Nobody does infighting better than the bzyatium babyyyyy😎
"Might makes right" is a poor strategy in the long-term
The Eastern Roman Empire lasted like a thousand years though lmao
@@thorsday121because the rest of the governments systems were able to make up for it
@@thorsday121 *Laughs in Fourth Crusade*
It's not a strategy, it's more like it's just what happens. Whatever tends to last longer (meaning, has might) does last longer.
@@thorsday121As jacobjones said, for all of the corruption, civil wars, parasitic nobles and incompetent emperors,the eastern roman empire managed to crawl into the 1400s through its legacy, geographical and strategic postion, military knowhow, bureaucracy ( when it isnt a corrupt and useless moneypit) and competent emperors.
Without the civil wars themselves, who knows how much more longer they could have survived
Very informative. Your historic maps are amazing. Any way you could cover the Eastern Roman rump states in Trebizond, the Peloponnese, and Crimea?
These videos would be exponentially better if you put the year on the screen when a specific event happens, or mention the year when you talk about the event. It's so hard to tell when any of this stuff happened. You sometimes mention the century but you rarely (or never) say the year stuff happens.
Great work!
Keep it rolling sir! Keep the Byzantine content running! We would love a new series about Theophilus, John Korkouas, John Tsimiskes, or John and Manuel Komnenos.
I think this video focuses more on the militaristic and factional disputes, while ignoring other factors, religious disputes being the most notable I can think of. Many civil wars were, either in name or in fact, started by differences in religious creeds and doctrines. See: Eikonomachia, Nestorianism, Arianism, Monophysitism, Schism...
Good point. And, indeed, "Religious strife in the Byzantine empire" script is in the works.
@@KingsandGenerals and do not forget , that millions of Greeks died because they did not want to be christians! The majority of the Greeks want it to stay to their Greek religion. Hundrends of thousands of Greeks died in Fire. Hundrends of thousends were killed like animals to special bouther houses made for the Greeks. There was a Greek bouther house at Skithupolis. They put the Greeks inside and kill them , by taking slowly slowly their skin and then slowly slowly cut them in pieces. It was special bucher houses made for Greeks. The Real Roman emperos made those bucher houses. To the cities that there were no Greek bucher houses , the real roman soldiers together with Greek prists were berning the Greeks alive inside the Greek cities! It was much more worst than the middle ages of europe. The middle ages of Greece was from 330 A.D. until 590 A.D. At that time there was a real east roman empire with real roman emperos. The Greek empire started at 600 A.D. The million deaths of the Greeks was to the period of the real roman emperors!
Ahhh the Byzantine empire, a huge medieval empire that is also the longest lasting empire in history, while also fighting unstoppable wars with formidable enemies, despite that they had an 80% victory percentage and were probably stronger than all of western Europe👏👏
There was never an Empire named Byzantine. It was the Roman Empire till the end.
@@athanasiusdicia117 correct!... the name was adopted after the fall... just like the symbol, the double headed eagle was never a symbol of the Eastern Roman Empire [that was anything but ''Greek'' as they say...] instead it was an ancient Mongolian symbol... [that little piece of history burns!...]
@@athanasiusdicia117 Ok but it's good to use the term byzantine so we can part the ancient Rome from the medieval Rome
@@user-McGiver The double headed eagle was in fact two opposite facing eagles, those of Zeus, meeting at Delphi. It was literally the remnant of that myth.
I can't help but find similarities demonstrated in the Byzatine Empire and in ours. Instead of fighting with masts and javlines as did the ancient generals, today's politicians fight with money and filibusters and sweet talks pandering to voters. No wonder the ideal state to Plate is never direct democracy.
People often think it was the Turks finished the Eastern Rome but they clearly did to themselves way before the Turks arrived. And the 4th crusade was the final nail to the coffin. Turks just swept away the survivors
The things Oghuz Turks destroyed at it's prime was the Crusades and Serbians not the Byzantines, Crusade of 1101 crippled all the plans because how bad it went for the Crusaders. Similar goes for Serbians too maybe you can include Hungarians they were not at their prime but they were too pretty strong at that time.
The Turks actually waited for Byzantines to fight among themselves while they were fighting with Serbs, Bulgars, and other balkanic nations and cleaning their way into the Balkans... then, they circled Byzantine and captured it. which is a brilliant strategy.
"What if they had done X, the empire could have survived"
"What if they had done Y, the empire could have survived"
My Romans in Christ... STOP INFIGHTING
Nothing says ‘Roman’ like political infighting!
Thanks for the video! One note: I find it hard to follow the chronology sometimes with just the emporers names as landmark. Maybe the current discussed year or the time of the Reign could be displayed in a corner in future videos of similar kind with a huge time frame?
the Byzantine Empire is basically Rome 2.0, so naturally it had all of Rome Strengths, like adaptability and economic power house. But it also had all of Rome's weaknesses, ie internal strife that leads to civil wars that slowly but surely weakened the empire in the long run, just like the old days of Rome.
Byzantine Empire IS Roman Empire, continuity was not broken
@@darkorodic638 correct!... the name was adopted after the fall... just like the symbol, the double headed eagle was never a symbol of the Eastern Roman Empire [that was anything but ''Greek'' as they say...] instead it was an ancient Mongolian symbol... [that little piece of history burns!...]
wtf is this argument "it's basically X state 2.0 so it had strenghts and weaknesses of it", how does it work in your mind? Real life works like a game with a specific name of country gets buffs and debuffs? And it can't reform/change?
France is basically Frankish empire 2.0, with its strenghts in generating strong leaders and weakness in dividing after leader dies
@@darkorodic638Nah
The Eastern Roman empire a shadow its former power when the caliphate risen and taken the middle east and north africa.
A guy takes the throne. "yay"
3 dudes pop up in rebellion.
A random 4th guy takes the throne instead.
What am I watching? lol
But I love it. Great episode.
Excellent video, absolutely jam packed with information.
Its interesting how their enemies steadily kept encroaching on their borders, whitling the empire away, but still they kept rebelling and starting civil wars
These kind of videos are the best on the channel
"The Empire, Long Divided, Must Unite; Long United, Must Divide"
The Roman Empire, including the Eastern Roman Empire always valued its republican tradition where by merit a leader had the right to govern but in practice this can be an invitation to anarchy and because of that they experienced numerous civil wars throughout its history due to factors such as succession disputes, power struggles, political instability and military ambitions. But the Romans also had economic disparities, and regional aspirations. These conflicts could have been avoided through clear succession plans, political reforms, military reforms, economic and social reforms, granting regional autonomy, and prioritizing diplomacy and negotiation. Implementing these measures could have reduced the occurrence and severity of civil wars, leading to a more stable and cohesive empire.
Brazzerlian
Mebbe they needed democracy.
Bros saying this like they could follow your advice (you're +1000 years late)
You could never convince me that the Eastern Romans had more civil wars then the Western Romans.
This video was a very interesting and well done summary of bizantine civil wars, I just felt the lack of more dates on the screen to better follow the narration between the differnt eras of bizantine history
My boy is back at it! Thank you everyone who makes this happen
The reason why Rome is my favourite Empire is , it had 1000+ civil wars , surrounded by enemies, bounced back at dire times, plagued to death and lasted 2206 years.
The empire lasted around 1420 years (counting the 60 year interruption because of the fourth crusade)
@@alphagamer9505i believe he's talking about Rome as a whole from its founding in 753 bc to 1453
@@ORION00119 He said Empire though so the gentleman above is correct, as an empire it lasted 1218 years (since it fell to the crusaders in 1204) using this guys logic Persia lasted for 2657 years
@@williamrobert9898 that's likely because he mostly sees Rome as the Empire i mean u don't get ppl mentioning the Kingdom at all when they mention Rome in general, could also be an error on the them. Not to mention 2206 years is the exact time from its founding to the fall of Constantinople which means he meant the whole thing.
@@ORION00119 But it was not an imperial constitution until 14 BC so he messed up, that is the point
A great video...... a very good concentration of details that clear the way to understand the roman civil wars .... as always you guys are doing an insane job ... everything is perfect including the narration as always ... got my full support !!!!!
Its a local tradition that goes back to the generals of alexander the great and can be seen even in last century's modern Greece
Greatest enemy of a Greek is another Greek
This video clarified many things about byzantine politics for me. At the start I tought it was the komnenian military system the cause of the fall of the empire, but seems like the cause was even deeper.
Excellent video!
Great channel! A nice feature would be for the years to scroll by on the screen as you're narrating.
It does when we depict a certain year
Thank you for uploading! I'm learning more and more about my favorite empire
They were just keeping true to the cherished Roman tradition of Civil War Tuesday.
Amazing work!
Thank you ❤
"Eastern Roman Empire, how many civil wars do you want?"
"Yes!"
Very eye opening; would of thought that the presence of a mortal threat would have concentrated the minds of the leadership class
Kings and Generals Great Video!
Dynatoi is the plural in Greek for Powerful, Capable and/or Able 9:54. Of course I’m sure understanding “exactly” what it meant within the historical context is more complicated than a simple translation I suppose.
He is talking about the definition, rather than the etymology of the term tho.
I swear, Greeks could never stop fighting each other.
They are their worst enemy
Even during the persian invasion
Great job!
One of the best videos on Byzantine history. Great work as always
Intresting reading ancient Chinese sources about East Rome's elective monarchy
Can you please put the scroll that shows the year that something happens up much much more? It really helps to put things into perspective, when its easy to see exactly when something happened.
Even the Enemies of Byzantium thought having so many Civil Wars was nuts.
is it possible that the meritocacy that led to the civil wars also led to the consistent competent emperor's rising to power who were competent enough to fight off Byzantium's myriad enemies for a millennia?
Thanks for the video!
It is characteristic of the Greeks throughout all our history. We are not aggressive or hostile to other nations but civilized, but because we are very anarchist and free spirits with a strong sense of "Being", of our ideas or opinions etc. ("selfish" as one would say more populist in everyday language) we fight between ourselves. Even in every day modern Greek culture when a Greek is agree he/she usually says "Eh! Do you know who I AM ? " (it is something like a motto, or "meme" of everyday culture)
On one hand this is not something good but on the other that characteristic is exactly what gave birth to our nation's greatness, our strong sense of "human subject", of identity (our very early national consiousnes) , of "Being"... of freedom, of chaos...of "Wow, ok that is very nice that we created, now let's burn the whole thing down" 😄
We are Nietzscheic.. nation
Ps. But for that exactly reason also no one outsider and nothing can destroy us even if we live in the most "centered" and geostrategical place in the world, crossroad of civilizations for thousands years etc.etc. The strong sense of Being... But, between this times of civil war there are times of deep harmony and cultural explosion / creation and then the same pattern again. Creation and destruction, creation and destruction, exactly like in the ancient Greek mythology...(Khronos takes the throne of Uranus and turns the world and it's laws "upside down", then Zeus takes the throne of Khronos the same happens, then Prometheus threatens the throne of Zeus, then the last Greek god Christ also threatens the throne of a Roman emperor - he gives the command that all little child's lately borned to be killed - and turns Rome "upside down" etc.etc)
Great video! Your team did a great job!
I think you could draw so many parallels between the slow decline of the Byzantine empire due to the “screw everyone and everything as long as I am the king of the ashes” attitude of the elites and the current state of so many western countries. At least I see it here in the U.K.
Sometimes it feels like the whole world is run by people like this.
It’s very easy to draw parallels, but we have to remember Byzantine history lasted 1,000 years. Assuming we don’t get nuked off the planet, I doubt we will see much radical change in our lifetimes.
For me it was the part about the elites preferring a weak emperor that can be controlled over a strong emperor that made me "ah yes, American politics of the last few decades..."
"These Denatoi were families who had acquired vast tracts of land in Anatolia during the 7th & 8th centuries." All I could think of is Monty Python's Holy Grail: Lord of Swamp Castle: "What's wrong with Princess Lucky? She's beautiful! She's got great, huge. . . . tracts of land!" Son: "But I don't want land!" "Listen son! We live in a bloody swamp! We need all the land we can get!" 😆
Roman Empire's greatest weakness is that they had to pretend they were a republic till the end. They couldn't tolerate the idea of a ruler passing office to his son. But let's face it, kingdoms, as bad as they were, were much more stable, because there was a clear line of succession instead of "hey, the throne is now for the grabbing, let the games begin".
The fragmentation of Byzantine imperial power because of the thematic system sounds like what happened to feudal Japan wherein the shogun's held more power than the emperor.
11:10 , The Foka-these clan... sounds rather unfortunate 😂
Well, it just wouldn't be the Roman Empire without civil wars.
In Crusader Kings, if "Byzantine Revolt" isn't on the map, wait 5 minutes.
Rewatching the Byzantine videos because the new update coming out
Fantastic video! ⚔🔥🙌
Nice video
You mentioned it in passing, but could you do a video on the Samaritan Revolt? I don't think there are nearly enough videos on UA-cam exploring their history and you guys would no doubt do it justice!
I second this! Samaritans need love too! One parable in the New Testament isn't enough.
There's a common pattern between Alparslan and Attila both inflicted heavy defeats against the Romans in Manzikert and Ravenna respectively and died just the year after at the height of their power
Battle of Manzikert was not so important because the empire took the lost lands back and won against the turks. The big problem that destroyed the empire was the fourth crusade. Romans lost to many battles but always where coming back stronger
@@iwannisbalaouras1687 chill shut up TURKS TAKE ANATOLİA AND İSTANBUL MASSACRED ALL GREEKS BECAUSE BATTLE OFMANZKİKERTç
@@iwannisbalaouras1687 The Battle of Manzikert paved way for Crusades and the Turkification of Anatolia which laid the seeds of the Ottoman empire which conquered Constantinople ending Rome and triggering the Age of Discovery which shaped much of the modern world,... A battle can only be this impactful
@@tokmakchibashi read again my answer , i don't like to repeat myself
@@iwannisbalaouras1687Precisely. The Byzantines took back the most important parts of Anatolia. The Turks weren't much of a problem any more. For the Byzantines the crusaders were a much more dangerous threat than the Turks
The Byzantine Republic is a good book that explains how the civil wars functioned as elections
😂
Good book
Ha love that term 'thoroughly Stalin-ed' should be in the OED
Greek translations: Dynatoi, the strong. Penetes, the starving. As fitting as it gets.
Turks indeed had a decisive role in triggering historical major events like the Migration Period, Crusades, shaping the history of Balkans, Islamization of Northern India, Age of Discovery as well as ending the Middle Ages with the conquest of Constantinople, fall of the Roman Empire.
They just be showing they’re the Roman Empire
what would be an alternate history everyone would like to see on wizards and warriors.
While the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 AD, the Eastern Roman Empire-better known as the Byzantine Empire-thrived for nearly 1,000 more years. Its capital, Constantinople, became one of the wealthiest and most influential cities in the world. Withstanding numerous sieges, Constantinople’s strategic location and advanced defenses, including the famous 'Greek Fire,' kept invaders at bay until its fall in 1453. This marked the end of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Ottoman Empire, forever changing the course of history.
Looking at the wild ride that is it's history, it is quite amazing that the Eastern Roman Empire lasted as long as it did.
They all think of julius caesar taking power, but never the failed usupers that came before them
The Battle of Manzikert paved way for Crusades and the Turkification of Anatolia which laid the seeds of the Ottoman empire which conquered Constantinople ending Rome and triggering the Age of Discovery which shaped much of the modern world,... A battle can only be this impactful
The battle of Manzikert washn't so important, fourth crusade destroyed the empire after that the empire was a shell of its former self. >> Komnhnian restoration
@@iwannisbalaouras1687lol 4 th crusade didnt do much damage .
@@groundzero5708 lol start reading boy
Reading about the Palaiologos civil wars of the 14th century had me like:
(to the Palaiologans) "We had a good thing you stupid son of a bitch! We had Thessaly! We had Macedonia! We had everything we ever needed! And it all ran like clockwork! You could have slowly expanded and taken back the pre-1204 land. It was perfect!
But no! You just had to blow it up! You, and your civil wars and alliances! You just had to be the Roman! If you'd kept your navy, paid the Catalan Company, we'd all be eating souvlaki right now!"
My American private high school only mentioned Byzantium. We aren’t taught anything about it. Other than it was the 2nd Rome and was Greek lol
I am a Turkish American. Same problem. Took a DNA test and learned that Turkish people are mixed from the Byzantine people and Central Asians, so I was like, I probably should know this history…
Why So Many Civil Wars? We're Greeks, we can't agree amongst ourselves most of the time, but when necessary we become united so that we can build a state to squabble in peace.
Queue 3500 years of Hellenism with this ad nauseam.
Good job
I like civil wars in the Eastern Roman Empire. Thanks to one of them, Bulgaria made its first territorial expansion south of the Balkan Mountains. Good, civil wars.
Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things... 😁🙏
I think we should focus on why they don't have the law for successor.
Personally,it is clear that the Repulic was successed by the medival Rome,even the Repulic transformed to be a military dictatorship system,the name and the system of the Repulic still exited in the Rome.
When Auguest estabulished the kind of military dictatorship regime,he depended on different tilte and military to control the power,therefore we can see the situation about someone who can take the support of military,he can be the emperor.
This is not only in the medieval Rome,this is comomon in any dictatorship regime.
Not so many, but because empire was so monumental, it held for hundreds of years, even with those civil wars.
Take Arab sultanats, caliphates, and Emirates for example, civil war caused many empires turn into ashes.
So we know about many civil wars not because there were so many, but because of empire holding after civil wars.
The rashidun caliphate, the ummayad caliphate and the Abbasid caliphate together lasted for 300 to 400 years, the Byzantine empire was at its territorial height for 300 years
@@TheIronChancellor You comparing dynasties to an empire, and not just how long empire last, but last with its territorial height.
ERE was empire from 395, to 1204, 800+ years of empire, that's more than impressive.
@@sircatangry5864 It's not just dynasties because a caliphate isn't an empire it works a bit different and it is difficult to explain, but I think that the abbasid caliphate is a different state to the rashidun caliphate
@@TheIronChancellor Well, Abbasids claim to descendant from Radhidun caliphate.
But yeah, its complicated.
@@sircatangry5864 It's VERY complicated but the rashiduns are the heirs of Muhammad, the ummayads from caliph Muawiyah and the Abbasids from al Abbas I may be wrong but it sounds right
Byzantine 1: "Hey, did you hear that our entire civilisation is under an existential threat?"
Byzantine 2: "oh yeah, and the emperor is doing his best to combat it right?"
Byzantine 1: "Yup, you know what that means"
Byzantine 1 and 2 proceed to draw their daggers and blind the most capable emperor in a century
*Strategoi* & *Dynatoi* (13:56) are being butchered *at the last syllable* since the KG establishment... *Palaiologoi* (16:56) spared miraculously 😋.
Establishment
@@KingsandGenerals 😇
Another great video!
Great empires often fall more because of internal problems than external threats…
The period between the death of Basil II in 1025 and the coronation of Alexios I in 1081 proved to be the most crucial point to the long-term existence of the empire.
I could only imagine, what if Basil II had 2 more competent successors before the rise of Alexios.
The Turks would have been stop in 1071.
Thus, there will be no Crusades.
No sacking of 1204
Could you make for Granada too?
aah division and unification. the entirety of greek history in two words. from troy to the aftermath of WW2 . but as with any state, once it adopts the mantle of ""empire" its doomed to fall. such is life when speaking about states i think. Nevertheless a splendid empire, one which the word meritocracy endured during the dark ages, as well as a place of culture science and trade. Only if we could learn from their mistake and imittate their successes(speaking as a modern greek here....). Excellent video keep it up :).
Why didn't they use the Achaemenid system of holding the family of every active satrap hostage. If the wives and children of the key Byzantine generals and leaders were living in the emperors palace, eating his food, drinking his water and breathing his air, they would think twice before rebelling.
Thanks for the video. It was excellent as always.
With that level of intrigues, it's almost as if plunging a knife into your own chest. Sure, they are hostages. But the Emperor also cannot harm them because doing so will incite a revolt. Meaning his powerbase will be even weaker since he has to please all the 'hostages' to make sure they don't incite violence. This will also lead to internal politicking within the palace that will destabilize the empire even further. The clans will use their hostages as casus belli to launch a rebellion and no emperor wants that.
The only way to deal with this is to destabilize the clans. The best way to do it is the divide and conquer strategy with something like 'if the head of the family dies, the property will be shared among all his children'. This way, the central court can use politics, schemes and outright confiscation to take back the land and supplant it with centralized governorship instead. This will take at latest 2 generations to complete. It'll take someone like Justinian, Alexios and Heraclius to pull this off, with Byzantiou being attacked like almost yearly...
That's what Romans practiced to an extent with neighboring nations. You may be aware of the case of Arminus and how his roman education helped him plan almost successful rebelion. Considering Rome withdrew from Germania. Doing so to the great houses is pretty decent idea, although it requires consistent indoctrination and requires assurance that hostage is actually valuable for the clan
@@Cheveliery Having hostages is wise if you are in a position of power. But the clans in ERE were in the position of power, not the emperor. It was wiser to just destabilize and take over them. What ERE needed was centralization and consolidation.
Because you are intentionally trying to get your legions experience in battle before Attila is born and takes charge of the Huns.
Thank you for the video
This was a great, fresh take on history that also made me think "why has no one ever done Byzantine history through this lens?"
I might have liked to see more about how these civil wars were directly linked to territorial losses to enemies--especially during the 4th Crusade--but I suspect that this aspect of Byzantium's decline will be covered in some way in future videos.
Other people here have mentioned the religious aspect of many of medieval Rome's civil wars, and I'm glad to hear you guys are planning a video on that, too! I hope you might also touch more upon regionalism in the late Roman Empire and its effect on civil wars and usurpations--which you did touch on briefly in this video, but I want to hear more! E.g. did people from Antioch or Sicily or Cilicia resent centralized rule and put forward their own candidates for the purple in order to get a better deal on taxes or protection?
can you also make videos about the western roman empire?
Firstly dynatoi is pronounced dynat(e) and it means strong.so it was the strong families
The Byzantine was just doing the balkan stuff.
Thus, questions. How did the average Eastern Roman view the imperial purple? Were there or did anyone even try to formalise a succession system/law?
Love learning more about the Byzantine Empire .I’m always at awe of the thought that had the city of Constantinople survived just 5 or 600 years more we could have actually been able to have “modern” contact with the legacy of the Roman Empire .I know it’s a dumb idea but I always think about it and how cool it would be .hell the fact they survived until they did considering all the turmoil internally and out is itself incredible!
As hilarious as it may sound, you actually still can get a "modern contact" with the legacy of the Roman empire in the form of the Roman Catholic Church. Jokingly one could even argue the Roman Empire had evolved from a mighty empire into the form of a religious institution
The history of the Roman empire, eastern or not, was a series of civil wars, that is, wars of succession. - Significantly, the European peoples that kept more or less the Roman model of succession (namely eastern orthodox states) inherited that kind of instability: Bulgaria, Serbia, Rus states, Wallachia, Moldavia. (Muscovy-Russia became an empire only after the dynastic principle was imposed by the Romanov, through blatant tyranny and even terror, not unlike what some Roman emperors came up with).
I find it absolutely hilarious that roman emperor was both considered to be the God's lieutenant on earth, the living embodiment of the law and somehow also the most likely person to be murdered and usurped at any given point. It's like "Well yes he's incredibly holy and deserves all the power that he has which is how I want everyone to treat me after I kill the current guy." No one stopped to think, "Maybe we would all be better off if we just stopped plunging the realm into civil wars and installing weak leaders to the throne?"
Thank you!!
Let the blindings begin!