There's a fundamental problem with this video: Irene wasn't unpopular in her last years. Indeed, most people had no idea what happened to her son and the few who might have known were firmly in her pocket. The reason why she was ultimately thrown out was because by killing her son she had effectively killed off her future. Now those under her began jockeying for position because one of them could either become Emperor or be the one to pick said emperor.
I mean, I would say that Irene's decision to cut taxes fairly dramatically (especially at a time when expenditures were increasing with disastrous wars with the Arabs) smacks of insecurity on the throne and the need to curry favour with the people in the wake of a fairly heinous crime. In all fairness, a few of the taxes she repealed were unfair; but in general her actions seem fairly desperate during these grim years. From what I've read, the blinding, deposition and likely death of Constantine VI was not covered up; the general public of the Empire was aware of what had transpired.
It would be impossible to cover something like this up. It’s such an egregious crime that basically everyone would know about it. Take Caracalla’s murder of Geta as an example. He burned down Alexandria and massacred thousands because common stage actors made a joke about him murdering his brother.
@@thedemonhater7748 Except that it was covered up. It wasn't some public thing. She did it quietly. She had also isolated Constantine VI from any alternate source of support, like the Army. Listen to the History of Byzantium Podcast if you want to learn more. In particular check out Episodes 78, A New Helena, 79, A Mother's Love, and 80, The Isaurian Dynasty. These episodes cover Irene in detail, including after Constantine was gotten rid of.
@@pieceofschmidtgamerwell they TRIED to cover it up, but too many knew about what took place for it to remain a secret all that long, so as the video essentially states, Irene's murder of her own son was a rather well known and very poorly kept secret ...
Hey Serapeum, Byzantine history is my life's passion, so I'm always glad to see it more popularized in content such as yours. I think you're a bit confused around the Varbitza Pass. If Krum really did ask for peace (since the main historian of the era is quite biased against Nikephoros and maybe in this case he wanted to make him out to be too arrogant), it would have been just to lull Nikephoros into a false sense of security while making his own preparations. Second, Nikephoros did not go hunting for Krum into the mountains when he was ambushed. His campaign was over and he was going straight home. Also, your map is slightly off. The furthest city in Thrace that the Byzantines controlled directly during their "Dark Ages" was Philippopolis. This is reflected in the make up of the Byzantine themes at the time. Serdica was cut off from direct contact with the empire for quite a while. I do find your idea that Krum and Leo had made a pact interesting. Did you read about that somewhere?
I thought the Byzantines controlled Beroe (Stara Zagora) just up until this time; Irene made a visit there in 784, and the city was renamed Eirenopolis as a result.
As for Serdica, I thought they still had relative control of the region - but, admittedly, I don't know too much about the realities of the level of Byzantine control on the ground during this period. So I'm probably wrong. Thanks for the fact-check; it's good to keep UA-camrs (especially ones claiming to be educational) on their toes, so I appreciate it.
Going by Panos Sophoulis’ “Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831” from 2011 the Byzantines tried really hard to maintain those parts of Thrace that were closest to the Black Sea. From the coastline they could trade with or attack Bulgaria according to the circumstances. Further inland the measure of Byzantine control sharply dropped. This can also be seen in “Notitiae Episcopatuum”, which is a list reflecting the density of Byzantine bishoprics. Is the pact between Leo and Krum your idea? I find the idea of Bulgars and Byzantines cooperating at this time fascinating because it contradicts the hostile and exclusionary language of the Byzantine sources (for example, Krum had a Byzantine son in law!)
I first read about the Leo-Krum pact in John Julius Norwich's History of Byzantium, and I thought it was worth mentioning, even if not everyone agrees.
I respect Nikephoros I's intentions to fix the Empire's problems, there's even a letter where the Caliph calls Nikephoros a "dog" for not being as submissive as Irene. Sadly, it ended in disappointment. But even thought Krum won against Byzantium in many occasions, his descendants turned to Christianity later on. Krum is the real failure. He fought for nothing, ultimately. Only caused suffering.
Well, that's huge oversimplification. There were Christian monarchs of Bulgaria long before Krum. Not to mention that Christianity was wide-spread across the Balkans at the time. Moreover, there is no evidence of Krum being anti-Christian or pagan fundamentalist per se. So labeling him as a 'failure' is just not justified.
J'irais jusqu'à dire que ce khan a combattu comme un idiot contre une montagne en choisissant l' Empire Romain d'Orient. Qu' il ait non seulement fait faire une coupe à boire du crâne de Nikephoros I , mais lui et ses boyards, aient bouffé les restes de son cadavre, ne relève pas la mémoire de ces sauvages.
Her reign is covered in more depth on my video totally dedicated to her. This video, as one focused on Nikephoros, only covers her where relevant, such as the factors that lead to her downfall.
Patriarch Sergios was Michael Ranghabe's (eunuch) son and his deposition ignited the Photian schism. Also I'm definitely not buying the Leo-Krum conspiracy. I do think Krum was assassinated by imperial agents though. His death was way too convenient. Finally, I think Nikeohorus is one of the most underrated emperors but calling the Nikeohorians a dynasty always seemed a bit of a stretch.
DAVEY B & JKelsey To found a dynasty only 3 succesive firth grade parents ( grandfather,father and son) who rule the same country in succesion are needed, even if the son has no issue...
13:17 Actually, the exact equivalent to imperator is autokrator. Basileus is the Greek translation of Latin rex, which was also used, but wasn't the same title. Augustos (Augustos) was still used as a lesser title until the 12th century. The female title Augusta was more prominent, being featured in the mosaic of Zoe in Saint Sophia.
In the most literal sense, yeah, autokrator is probably a closer translation of imperator than basileus/vasilefs; but in Byzantine times, the identification of the Basileus as the Emperor, rather than a mere king, and with the title of imperator is pretty clear, even if autokrator is literally a more direct translation. I mean, to the best of my knowledge autokrator was not officially included in the Byzantine Emperor's nomenclature until the times of Alexander (912-913). Even before this time, the Byzantines were always got pretty pissy whenever Franks used the title imperator, because they saw it as infringing on their rights.
Krum Khan (also known as Krum the Fearsome) was a military chieftain from Pannonia who became one of the greatest rulers of Bulgaria. During his reign, he unified the Bulgars and fought a successful war against the Byzantine Empire. Krum's defeat of the Avars early in his rule enabled him to unite the Bulgars who had lived under Avar rule. With the defeat of the Avars, Bulgars replaced them as overlords of the Slavs and Romanians living north of the Danube River. After the Byzantines raided Bulgaria in 807, Krum's troops struck back. In 811, the Byzantine emperor, Nikephoros I, personally led a large army against the Bulgars. He succeeded in sacking Krum's capital of Pliska, but on his way home the Bulgars ambushed and destroyed his army and killed Nikephoros. The Bulgars made his skull into a gruesome drink- ing cup. Krum followed his victory by capturing two important Byzantine ports on the Black Sea. In 813, after he had defeated the large army the Byzantines sent against him, Krum captured Thrace and invaded the area surrounding Constantinople. He sent many Byzantine subjects to Bulgaria to serve as soldiers in his army. In 814, as commander of a massive army, Krum marched on Constantinople. He never arrived, dying of a stroke on the way. In his dealings with the Byzantine rulers, Krum resorted to military force only after diplomacy failed. For example, throughout his campaign against Nikephoros, he extended several peace offers, which the emperor ignored. Throughout 812 and 813, he attempted to negotiate with the Byzantines. Only after his gestures were rejected did he launch his attacks. Krum was not only a great warrior but an effective administrator as well. He issued the first national law code in the history of the Bulgarian state, a fragment of which has survived. He tolerated other ethnic groups and employed a diverse group of people-Bulgars, Avars, Slavs, Greeks, and even an Arab-in his administration. In the Byzantine territories, he placed Greeks in high administrative positions.
My thoughts on each Nikephoran emperor: - Nikephoras I. Bit of a disaster. And not just because of Pliska. He barely kept things together in Anatolia and against the Franks. - Staurakios. I mean, Nikephoros was bad but... at least he did something. All Staurakios did was die. - Michael I. MUCH better than the previous two but not perfect. Cracked down on iconoclasts and succeeeded where Nikephoras failed in his policy against the Franks. However, his campaign in Bulgaria was another disaster. At least he had the wisdom to abdicate afterwards. Ranked: 3) Staurakios 2) Nikephoros I 1) Michael I
The armies were different in size. Nickephoros started the Pliska campaign with at least 60 thousand. Bulgarian army at Versinikia is much much larger than 12 000. You don't devastate all the Thrace with 12 000. The rest is perfect!
Nice Video but i wouldn't call Krum the meanest, toughest or most formidable leader Bulgaria ever had but he was among them. also Krum's expansion led Bulgaria all the way to the Danube River and to owning half of modern day Hungary, why you'd stop the border before that idk.
@@Serapeum there are many, I'd argue Simeon The Great was the best combination of them all but not the best at either. But yeah Kaloyan is a contender, same with Khan Tervel and the underrated Khan Presian I too and many others overall.
Isn’t it inaccurate to call the eastern half of the empire the inheritors of Rome if you can trace their unbroken continuity back to Rome? Wouldn’t they simply just be…the Roman Empire? The same can not be said about Charlemagne and his empire.
@@HidalgodeAndalucia the Roman kingdom was also very different from the republic. As was the early empire vs the empire of the 5th century. I don’t see what your point is.
@@TheManCaveYTChannel I'm refering to cultural changes brough by greek culture. Is also noteworthy to remember that the ways we divide history is anachronistic and is not unique to the eastern Roman empire.
@@HidalgodeAndalucia the Greek language and names? But they continued using Roman law, Roman religion, Roman government. The only that really changed was the language. Going back to the republic, almost all emperors and senators spoke Greek. Most of Roman culture was influenced by Greek culture from the beginning anyways. I don’t see why that’s somehow an issue for the eastern half of the Roman Empire.
The "Byzantine Empire" is a term introduced in the 16th century to describe the eastern half of the Roman Empire. So, the terms Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire are pretty much interchangeable - they both describe the eastern continuation of Rome, starting from the fourth century onwards
John Julius Norwich's three-volume history covers the entirety of the Empire's existence, from the 330s to 1453. It's a fun read, and if you don't want to read all three, you can always read the slimmed-down single volume version. Another useful book for getting acquainted with Byzantine history is Judith Herrin's "Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire".
Emperor Justinian was an lllyrian/ Dardan/ Albanian, and the Byzantium was an Illyrian Empire! Emperor Constantin was an lllyrian/ Albanian, and the Byzantium was an Illyrian Empire! Komnenians Dinasty was Illyrian/ Albanian! Alexander the Great was Illyrian/Albanian! The history must be rewritten!
"If you dont want the pax, you get the axe! " Krum
Thank you for mentioning Bulgaria as it is vastly overlooked during the middle ages.
There's a fundamental problem with this video: Irene wasn't unpopular in her last years. Indeed, most people had no idea what happened to her son and the few who might have known were firmly in her pocket.
The reason why she was ultimately thrown out was because by killing her son she had effectively killed off her future. Now those under her began jockeying for position because one of them could either become Emperor or be the one to pick said emperor.
I mean, I would say that Irene's decision to cut taxes fairly dramatically (especially at a time when expenditures were increasing with disastrous wars with the Arabs) smacks of insecurity on the throne and the need to curry favour with the people in the wake of a fairly heinous crime. In all fairness, a few of the taxes she repealed were unfair; but in general her actions seem fairly desperate during these grim years.
From what I've read, the blinding, deposition and likely death of Constantine VI was not covered up; the general public of the Empire was aware of what had transpired.
It would be impossible to cover something like this up. It’s such an egregious crime that basically everyone would know about it.
Take Caracalla’s murder of Geta as an example. He burned down Alexandria and massacred thousands because common stage actors made a joke about him murdering his brother.
@@thedemonhater7748 Except that it was covered up. It wasn't some public thing. She did it quietly. She had also isolated Constantine VI from any alternate source of support, like the Army.
Listen to the History of Byzantium Podcast if you want to learn more.
In particular check out Episodes 78, A New Helena, 79, A Mother's Love, and 80, The Isaurian Dynasty. These episodes cover Irene in detail, including after Constantine was gotten rid of.
@@pieceofschmidtgamerwell they TRIED to cover it up, but too many knew about what took place for it to remain a secret all that long, so as the video essentially states, Irene's murder of her own son was a rather well known and very poorly kept secret ...
Great video, was a good idea to include all of these emperors in the same video. Also your editing is getting increasingly impressive
You are too kind :)
Slowly getting good with Davinci resolve
This is easily my new favorite channel on Roman/Byzantine history
Hey Serapeum, Byzantine history is my life's passion, so I'm always glad to see it more popularized in content such as yours. I think you're a bit confused around the Varbitza Pass. If Krum really did ask for peace (since the main historian of the era is quite biased against Nikephoros and maybe in this case he wanted to make him out to be too arrogant), it would have been just to lull Nikephoros into a false sense of security while making his own preparations. Second, Nikephoros did not go hunting for Krum into the mountains when he was ambushed. His campaign was over and he was going straight home. Also, your map is slightly off. The furthest city in Thrace that the Byzantines controlled directly during their "Dark Ages" was Philippopolis. This is reflected in the make up of the Byzantine themes at the time. Serdica was cut off from direct contact with the empire for quite a while.
I do find your idea that Krum and Leo had made a pact interesting. Did you read about that somewhere?
I thought the Byzantines controlled Beroe (Stara Zagora) just up until this time; Irene made a visit there in 784, and the city was renamed Eirenopolis as a result.
As for Serdica, I thought they still had relative control of the region - but, admittedly, I don't know too much about the realities of the level of Byzantine control on the ground during this period. So I'm probably wrong.
Thanks for the fact-check; it's good to keep UA-camrs (especially ones claiming to be educational) on their toes, so I appreciate it.
Going by Panos Sophoulis’ “Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831” from 2011 the Byzantines tried really hard to maintain those parts of Thrace that were closest to the Black Sea. From the coastline they could trade with or attack Bulgaria according to the circumstances. Further inland the measure of Byzantine control sharply dropped. This can also be seen in “Notitiae Episcopatuum”, which is a list reflecting the density of Byzantine bishoprics. Is the pact between Leo and Krum your idea? I find the idea of Bulgars and Byzantines cooperating at this time fascinating because it contradicts the hostile and exclusionary language of the Byzantine sources (for example, Krum had a Byzantine son in law!)
I first read about the Leo-Krum pact in John Julius Norwich's History of Byzantium, and I thought it was worth mentioning, even if not everyone agrees.
Krum destroyed the Avars as well , and the killing of the Roman emperor was just the cherry on the cake !
I respect Nikephoros I's intentions to fix the Empire's problems, there's even a letter where the Caliph calls Nikephoros a "dog" for not being as submissive as Irene. Sadly, it ended in disappointment. But even thought Krum won against Byzantium in many occasions, his descendants turned to Christianity later on. Krum is the real failure. He fought for nothing, ultimately. Only caused suffering.
Well, that's huge oversimplification. There were Christian monarchs of Bulgaria long before Krum. Not to mention that Christianity was wide-spread across the Balkans at the time. Moreover, there is no evidence of Krum being anti-Christian or pagan fundamentalist per se. So labeling him as a 'failure' is just not justified.
He called him a dog because he regarded him as an Arab traitor
Krum made the way for the later Bulgarian invasions where Bulgars were able to siege Constantinople or be a major player in the region.
J'irais jusqu'à dire que ce khan a combattu comme un idiot contre une montagne en choisissant l' Empire Romain d'Orient. Qu' il ait non seulement fait faire une coupe à boire du crâne de Nikephoros I , mais lui et ses boyards, aient bouffé les restes de son cadavre, ne relève pas la mémoire de ces sauvages.
The fought for the survival of Bulgaria. He himself didn't fight the romans for any religious reasons.
You missed that Irene’s reign was not only bads. She reconquered mainland Greece and restored the icons, ending a long period of internal conflict
Her reign is covered in more depth on my video totally dedicated to her. This video, as one focused on Nikephoros, only covers her where relevant, such as the factors that lead to her downfall.
was waiting so long for a new vid to come
Patriarch Sergios was Michael Ranghabe's (eunuch) son and his deposition ignited the Photian schism.
Also I'm definitely not buying the Leo-Krum conspiracy. I do think Krum was assassinated by imperial agents though. His death was way too convenient.
Finally, I think Nikeohorus is one of the most underrated emperors but calling the Nikeohorians a dynasty always seemed a bit of a stretch.
I think whenever you are able to pass down the throne, you get counted as a dynasty.
DAVEY B & JKelsey
To found a dynasty only 3 succesive firth grade parents ( grandfather,father and son) who rule the same country in succesion are needed, even if the son has no issue...
They should have made Krum Emperor, what a leader.
Yeah, if the Byzantines had a leader like Krum during this time, they'd have wrecked their enemies
@@Serapeum Constantive V would have run him over like a steamroller.
Good video as always. Keep it up!
Amazing video! Very well done!
Excellent. Thank you much!
13:17 Actually, the exact equivalent to imperator is autokrator. Basileus is the Greek translation of Latin rex, which was also used, but wasn't the same title.
Augustos (Augustos) was still used as a lesser title until the 12th century. The female title Augusta was more prominent, being featured in the mosaic of Zoe in Saint Sophia.
In the most literal sense, yeah, autokrator is probably a closer translation of imperator than basileus/vasilefs; but in Byzantine times, the identification of the Basileus as the Emperor, rather than a mere king, and with the title of imperator is pretty clear, even if autokrator is literally a more direct translation.
I mean, to the best of my knowledge autokrator was not officially included in the Byzantine Emperor's nomenclature until the times of Alexander (912-913). Even before this time, the Byzantines were always got pretty pissy whenever Franks used the title imperator, because they saw it as infringing on their rights.
i thouroughly enjoyed the video, thanks!
Great video, love your channel
Excellent work
Great video!
Great vídeo
Great video :)
Hi Serapeum, I wish to contact you about doing a collaboration of some sort would you like to join and if so, how should I contact you?
Well, I have discord if that's of any use to you. What would this collab be about?
@@Serapeum Discord would be fine.
Nikephoros I is my 39th great grandfather.. Never knew about the arab bit.
Very well done! Thanks!
So basically the male line of the Nikephorian dynasty ends with Staurakios, no cousins or nephews at all?
10:04 that's not Michael Rangabe
Yeah... that's something I learnt too late
Krum the Fearsome disliked this video :)
I wouldve been so pissed off after that defeat in 813. Like, Come oooooon.....agaaain?
Krum Khan (also known as Krum the Fearsome) was a military chieftain from Pannonia who became one of the greatest rulers of Bulgaria. During his reign, he unified the Bulgars and fought a successful war against the Byzantine Empire. Krum's defeat of the Avars early in his rule enabled him to unite the Bulgars who had lived under Avar rule. With the defeat of the Avars, Bulgars replaced them as overlords of the Slavs and Romanians living north of the Danube River.
After the Byzantines raided Bulgaria in 807, Krum's troops struck back. In 811, the Byzantine emperor, Nikephoros I, personally led a large army against the Bulgars. He succeeded in sacking Krum's capital of Pliska, but on his way home the Bulgars ambushed and destroyed his army and killed Nikephoros. The Bulgars made his skull into a gruesome drink- ing cup. Krum followed his victory by capturing two important Byzantine ports on the Black Sea. In 813, after he had defeated the large army the Byzantines sent against him, Krum captured Thrace and invaded the area surrounding Constantinople. He sent many Byzantine subjects to Bulgaria to serve as soldiers in his army. In 814, as commander of a massive army, Krum marched on Constantinople. He never arrived, dying of a stroke on the way.
In his dealings with the Byzantine rulers, Krum resorted to military force only after diplomacy failed. For example, throughout his campaign against Nikephoros, he extended several peace offers, which the emperor ignored. Throughout 812 and 813, he attempted to negotiate with the Byzantines. Only after his gestures were rejected did he launch his attacks.
Krum was not only a great warrior but an effective administrator as well. He issued the first national law code in the history of the Bulgarian state, a fragment of which has survived. He tolerated other ethnic groups and employed a diverse group of people-Bulgars, Avars, Slavs, Greeks, and even an Arab-in his administration. In the Byzantine territories, he placed Greeks in high administrative positions.
That's Great!
Edit: I'm stupid...
There were Vlachs (proto-Romanians) there as well. They might have been very numerous, being separated from their empire a century before.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard They were part of population of Bulgarian Empire ofc
My thoughts on each Nikephoran emperor:
- Nikephoras I. Bit of a disaster. And not just because of Pliska. He barely kept things together in Anatolia and against the Franks.
- Staurakios. I mean, Nikephoros was bad but... at least he did something. All Staurakios did was die.
- Michael I. MUCH better than the previous two but not perfect. Cracked down on iconoclasts and succeeeded where Nikephoras failed in his policy against the Franks. However, his campaign in Bulgaria was another disaster. At least he had the wisdom to abdicate afterwards.
Ranked:
3) Staurakios
2) Nikephoros I
1) Michael I
The armies were different in size. Nickephoros started the Pliska campaign with at least 60 thousand. Bulgarian army at Versinikia is much much larger than 12 000. You don't devastate all the Thrace with 12 000. The rest is perfect!
Medieval times didn't have large armies. 15K 20K was considered a large army at those times.
Nice Video but i wouldn't call Krum the meanest, toughest or most formidable leader Bulgaria ever had but he was among them.
also Krum's expansion led Bulgaria all the way to the Danube River and to owning half of modern day Hungary, why you'd stop the border before that idk.
Kaloyan?
@@Serapeum there are many, I'd argue Simeon The Great was the best combination of them all but not the best at either.
But yeah Kaloyan is a contender, same with Khan Tervel and the underrated Khan Presian I too and many others overall.
There has never had any
" Nikephorian dynasty". Nick I ,II and III had only their firsth name in common.
Isn’t it inaccurate to call the eastern half of the empire the inheritors of Rome if you can trace their unbroken continuity back to Rome? Wouldn’t they simply just be…the Roman Empire? The same can not be said about Charlemagne and his empire.
In actuality Charlemagne can be considered a usurper who conspired with the Pope and carved a rump state out of Italy north of Rome.
The eastern Roman empire is technically very distinct from the classical one so I think is good to differentiate between the two
@@HidalgodeAndalucia the Roman kingdom was also very different from the republic. As was the early empire vs the empire of the 5th century. I don’t see what your point is.
@@TheManCaveYTChannel I'm refering to cultural changes brough by greek culture. Is also noteworthy to remember that the ways we divide history is anachronistic and is not unique to the eastern Roman empire.
@@HidalgodeAndalucia the Greek language and names? But they continued using Roman law, Roman religion, Roman government. The only that really changed was the language. Going back to the republic, almost all emperors and senators spoke Greek. Most of Roman culture was influenced by Greek culture from the beginning anyways. I don’t see why that’s somehow an issue for the eastern half of the Roman Empire.
I thought the "Byzantine Empire" started more than a century after the fall of the Easter Roman Empire?
The "Byzantine Empire" is a term introduced in the 16th century to describe the eastern half of the Roman Empire.
So, the terms Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire are pretty much interchangeable - they both describe the eastern continuation of Rome, starting from the fourth century onwards
Isn't it called the Macedonian dynasty though?
The Macedonian Dynasty only comes in the late 9th century
Are there any books anyone can recommend for general byzantine history?
John Julius Norwich's three-volume history covers the entirety of the Empire's existence, from the 330s to 1453. It's a fun read, and if you don't want to read all three, you can always read the slimmed-down single volume version. Another useful book for getting acquainted with Byzantine history is Judith Herrin's "Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire".
@@Serapeum thank you!
Love the vids too
Long live Romania! Long live Hellas!
Long live Arabia as well. nikephorus is Arab
I got an ad for axe before watching this and now I am trans
Third
Fourth, actually
What a disaster.
Emperor Justinian was an lllyrian/ Dardan/ Albanian, and the Byzantium was an Illyrian Empire!
Emperor Constantin was an lllyrian/ Albanian, and the Byzantium was an Illyrian Empire!
Komnenians Dinasty was Illyrian/ Albanian!
Alexander the Great was Illyrian/Albanian!
The history must be rewritten!