Emperor Phocas: An Exaggerated Evil?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- Emperor Phocas was the most infamous ruler of Byzantium. Of his reign terrible tales are told: to the writers of the time, he was little better than the Devil - monstrous and savage, tyrannical and despotic. Yet is his reputation deserved? Phocas ruled in interesting times and was an interesting figure himself, but the truth about this poorly understood and even more poorly evaluated emperor is clouded by later propaganda - a fuzzy haze of half-remembered truths and malicious lies.
So, what was Emperor Phocas, a wretched villain or an exaggerated evil?
I mean, Phocas did brutally murder Maurice too. Heraclius believed in eye for an eye?
Nah. Heraclius believed in securing the throne for himself and securing his own power. Killing the previous emperor personally to remove a claimant was a full-proof way to do that.
@@TheWazzoGames if only it worked that way for the Romans of the west (Caligula, Commodus, etc )
Yes he most certainly did, and rightfully so. Heraclius was a HERO who reigned for over 30 years and SAVED his beloved empire from the Sassanids
@@Eazy-ERyder He didn't save much else of it
@@histguy101 The great sassanid-byzantine war beat each to near death, caused primarily because of Phocas' coup. Although avenging maurice was a pretext more then a reason, it was a justification that let the war begin. If Heraclius had died just a few years earlier he wouldve died a second Aurelian, even if Aurelian himself led the Romans during the arab conquests they were in such a dire state he likely couldnt of stopped them, the empire was utterly lucky that their main rival was a meal large enough to stave off the arabian armys and Constantinople's geography is bonkers
There is a religious side of this issue that is being overlooked. Byzantine history was written by Orthodox monks. Phocas was an ally of the pope. The revolt in Egypt was backed by the Monophysites.
Killing Maurice, let alone rebelling against him, was foolish. The man was single-handedly holding Persia, Rome, and the Franks together. If that alliance survived, we'd all be speaking Greek or Latin to this day, and many horrible wars could've been avoided.
I think a Little of the same could be attribueted to the Murder of Alexander severus
@@alessandrogini5283 verità
People tend do not tend think in the span of thousands of years when making their decisions. I don't think we can blame someone for pursuing their own gain.
Uhm, unless we are objectivists, yes we can. We can definitely criticise someone for being selfish.
Another evidence that the army is a double edged sword
He brutally murdered Maurice, his sons and later his wife. That's far from lenient. Phocas fully deserved his fate.
Absolutely. He NEVER earned anything he got, only BRIBED his way there.
When Heraclius came into power, the Byzantime Empire really lost its Phocas.
Yeah right, Heraclius is much okay than Fuckass
Thank you for this objective look at a misunderstood eastern emperor. Like most emperors, east or west, they are never quite as horrendous as their literary compatriots present.
@Simas Graliauskas shut up
Nero was only given the reputation he has because he openly.mocked the Senate and the Patrician class. He was absolutely adored by the people.
Misunderstood?!? Gtho
Narses was actually the guy who asked the Sassanids for help which gave the Sassanids further reason to invade since Narses was the guy who put the Sassanid Shah on the throne during the reign of emperor Maurice
NO amount of exaggeration can describe that MONSTER Phocas!
Looks like someone didn't actually watch the video at all :)
@@thewitheredstriker we did watch. We don't agree with the assessment
@@TonyFontaine1988 Because?
@@thewitheredstriker Phokas started the chain of events that led to the fall of most of the Eastern Roman Empire. There was no reason to revolt and did what he did. Heracliys took his actions already after Phokas started all of this. Furthermore Phokas slaughtered Maurice's entire families and did wholescsle massacres against the population, which led to them supporting Heraclius. Furthermore, being exploited by the pope and not aking peace with the Sassanid's or crushing them made him the worst leader of the eastern roman empire.
@@TonyFontaine1988 LMAO,, seriously?? Yes, because the Eastern Roman Empire totally didn't survive for *800* years after Phocas died! You're telling me Phocas is _somehow_ worse than:
* Alexios IV, who directly caused the Sack of Constantinople in 1204;
* John VI, whose civil wars in the 1340's brought the Ottomans to Europe, destroyed the empire's army and economy, and effectively doomed the state in full;
* Andronikos II, who literally disbanded the _entire_ Byzantine navy when they needed it most;
* Andronikos I, whose unfathomable cruelty, paranoia, and despotism led to the Komnenoi being replaced with the terrible Angeloi,
* Constantine X, who was directly responsible for the defeat of Romanos IV at Manzikert;
* several other 11th century emperors who further undid the work of Basil II or caused/worsened Manzikert?
I never once said Phocas was a good emperor. I agree with you - he DID suck. But to call him the worst Byzantine emperor in all of history and to insist that he ALONE caused its collapse all the way back in the 600's is absolutely ridiculous.
Since you seem to really like Heraclius, I suppose you don't want to hear that it was HE who lost Egypt and spent _over a decade_ trying to retrieve it? And I suppose you also don't want to hear me point out that the army mutinied against Maurice in 593 for the EXACT SAME reason as in 602, i.e. wintering beyond the Danube, and Maurice sacked the general who ultimately stopped the mutinity? I _love_ Maurice, I really do, but he really SHOULD have known better. The events of 602 already happened in 593. Maurice learned nothing.
Phocas is bad. _Really_ bad. That's just the way it is. But his cruelty and incompetence are GREATLY exaggerated by biased writers, while Heraclius is made out to be some sort of flawless hero straight from heaven. The collapse of the ERE was by NO MEANS Phocas's fault; there's no goddamn way it would've survived for almost another *millenium* after his rule ended, if it was.
TL;DR Phocas is a bad emperor, but most of the cruelty and incompetence people ascribe to him are exaggerated as hell, and several stories about Phocas are outright fabricated. The bias really shows here.
Intriguing video!
I don’t think Phocas would’ve survived Byzantine court for that long if he was truly despised.
If anything, the fact that he was so unremarkable with politics probably put a smile on many a just or corrupt official alike.
He would be much more preferable alive for these independent types than to gamble with working under a hands on kind of ruler.
Does anyone know what that, grayish-black metal thing depicting Phocas is? I see it everywhere, is it a tiny statue?
Apparently, it's a "bronze steelyard-weight" depicting Phocas, and it can be found somewhere in the loot train of the British Museum.
So I guess it's like some sort of bronze statuette
@@Serapeum bruh ofcourse Britain
Why do theh steal everything
@@John-l4m8y Because they controlled everywhere for a minute
@@JayJ-b6l ik
Also Phocas made one of the greatest contribution to humanity by donating the Pantheon (which was an imperial property) to Pope Boniface V. In this way it became a church and stood the test of time.
One of his few good actions.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard of course, but still an important onr
He did NOTHING good at all. Every one of his actions was for his own personal benefit, beginning with him bribing his way to the throne during capital unrest.
@@Eazy-ERyder ok but I literally just told you the only good action he did
@@Eazy-ERyder Lowering taxation wasn't good? Carrying out a land reform that reduced corruption, protected peasants, and redirected money from the pockets of nobles to orphanages and hospitals wasn't good? Successfully keeping the Balkan frontier stable wasn't good? Successfully repelling the Persians until the Heraclian revolt caused the front to collapse wasn't good?
Seriously, this backwards narrative of "hurr durr Phocas the evil demon from hell who was vanquished by the godlike gigachad and paragon of unlimited perfection called Heraclius" needs to go.
(Some extra context: Syriac courses written during Phocas's reign disprove later sources that claim he fumbled the Persian front; they point out that the front remained stable until the Heraclians revolted. They cut off a stream of revenue and food from Africa to Constantinople, took Egypt, and then marched to Constantinople, forcing Phocas to move much of his army away from the eastern front and to his capital. Under the rule of Heraclius, the front collapsed for real, and Egypt was lost. He spent _over a decade_ trying to fix this, and when Constantinople was besieged in 626, Heraclius's first thought was to surrender the city and move his capital to Carthage; he only reneged because the Patriarch persuaded him to fight on. As mentioned in the video, the Balkan front also collapsed under Heraclius's watch. And even after his 20 year effort to halt the Persians succeeded, he simply lost everything to the Arabs again.)
I'm not saying Phocas was a good emperor, nor that Heraclius sucked. The truth is that the story is much more nuanced. Phocas objectively _did_ do good things, and his incompetence and cruelty were greatly exaggerated by biased sources, but in general, his rule was still not that good. Heraclius's reign was truly one of mixed fortunes: it started as a disaster (due to his *own* fault, by the way), then turned around, and finally became a disaster again.
It's time to stop believing the one-sided narratives crafted by the victors and to give the nuanced, middle-line views more attention.
the northern border staying secure during Phocas's reign was not his doing necessarily. Maurice inflicted so many defeats on them that it took a while for them to recover and actively start raiding imperial lands again. the avars have been a huge problem since they managed to unite the gepids, hunnic tribes that still remained, slavs and bulgars. Maurice crushed them again and again, denying them access to Thrace and keeping them on the back foot. in fact, one might say that making troops winter north of the Danube was two-fold: one, to cut costs maintaining the army, but the second, written in his Strategikon, was to destroy the tribes there by attacking them in winter time when the tribes were disbanded and presented poor defensive capacity. doing this, while giving the persians the beating of a lifetime and making them give very favorable terms to the romans.
so yeah, Phocas was as bad as they said he was. no need for biases here.
Where is previous video to this one on Emperor Maurice Please?
I am half blind and linking up your videos would be very helpful Thank you
Win of Roman's mentioned in quran with Hercules...the pact of "HUDAIBIYA" was broken with muslims when islam was emerging but Hercules broke the treaty n so the war between Muslims and Roman's started...
you cant just say phokas cause i get confused with the latter phocas's who were alot better
keep in mind rome only started shrinking once it became an empire
That's false 150 years after Rome became an empire it was still growing and Rome reached its pick during the empire period
@@NovaRoma-l it's called inertia
@@matm4413 what you said is still false maybe the reason why Rome stopped growing might be because it became an empire but it didn't make it shrink
This isn't true at all
@@TonyFontaine1988Insert reason here: ⬇️⬇️⬇️
Phocas is the most overrated Emperor but in reverse. He was vastly better then Maurice at least :}
He wasn't better then Maurice.
Maurice brought the war with Persia to a successful conclusion and expanded the eastern frontier. In the west he defeated the Avars and the slavs. He reformed the military and formed the exarchates of Italy and Africa. He is an actually competent emperor unlike Phocas 😂
yo what.
Phocas dis not kill Maurice. The people of Constantinople did.
No, Phocas did
Phocas definitely sucked with his pointless usurpation and incompetence on matters of state (surprisingly decent at the military) but sources really need to be taken with a grain of salt given Heraclius himself was a usurper and would want to bury his predecessor to build credibility.
Thank you for your video but when discussing HISTORY OF SACRED EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE which you insist on using old pagan and antichristian name of byzantium may i suggest you consider whether the did the wise consecrated and crowned will of GOD /as we all should/or whether they chose to do their own unconsecrated unclean common foo;ish will
log off
What in the world?
The accent in this video is tiring
This video is terrible. Ive already seen Honorius revisionist videos and this one too.
Sooo in short yeah he was a pretty bad emperor.
More revisionist history in order to get views
Just bringing up some frequently-overlook facts about a massively misunderstood emperor.
@@SerapeumI've now seen UA-cam defenses of Honorius, Nero, Caligula, etc. Pretty soon there will not be anymore bad emperors 😆
@@TonyFontaine1988 just because they were bad emperors doesn’t mean we shouldn’t doubt if they were truly bad. Some Roman sources were definitely biased against some emperors, so even if they were already terrible,they now seemed even worse. Also, Christian sources were heavily biased against emperors who persecuted them, making Nero (he was bad but not truly terrible) and Domitian seem like terrible emperors. Even if youtube speculations are wrong, it shouldn’t be looked down upon that we are questioning historical narratives.
@@Serapeum i Need a video like this about Alexander severus, underrated emperor
@@TonyFontaine1988 first anyone who named themselves chad is insecure that isn’t something you bestow on your self. Second give me one reason why nero is a terrible emperor
He wasnt an exaggerated evil, he did atrocious things and viciously punished those who objected to his evil-deeds.
He is by far the worst Eastern Roman Emperor ever.