Why Is Byzantium Not Popular?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 чер 2024
- Join the Discord: / discord
Support on Patreon: / romabooramblings
Footage:
Rome (2005-2007)
Rise of Empires: Ottomans (2019)
Gladiator (2001)
Pope Joan (2009)
Voltaire et l'affaire Calas" (2007)
Taboo (2014)
Amazing Grace (2006)
Medici (2016)
Quo Vadis (1951)
Barbarians (2020)
Cleopatra (2023)
Music:
Imperator: Rome Soundtrack - We The People
Imperator Rome: Soundtrack - Caesarion
Europa Universalis IV Soundtrack - Castle of Versailles
Europa Universalis IV Soundtrack - A New King Arrives
Crusader Kings 2 Soundtrack - The Byzantine Empire
00:00 Intro
00:26 Early Popularity
02:05 Enlightenment Attacks
05:00 The Decline And Fall
10:56 Revival
14:48 Looking Forward
The pagan era of Rome wasn’t as irreligious as atheists like Voltaire would like to believe. The religion just wasn’t Christianity.
To be fair, ath*ism and p*ganism both have 1 thing in common: they’re gay and cringe.
You teased the zoomer manchild with your comment.
@@IronCrownFromtheNorth Proved nothing. just an imbecilic insult.
Nothing less, nothing more.
Voltaire had a lot of silly ideas to justify his Christianity hate boner in all aspects of life and history.
@@LordVader1094what is his problem?
“A thousand years of decline” is an insane statement regarding any nation state
By that logic, Westen Roman Empire would fit albeit with shorter span.
Imagine saying that with a straight face.
@SmilingShadow-jl5tr I find it very strange to read a comment ethnically gatekeeping the make up of the Roman empire when it was always multi ethnic and multilingual anyway.
@@BrandonjSlippingAway Right? like lets just ignore all those hellenics and sanmites in southern italy and sicily lol.
Well, it is actually not really wrong, at least in terms of conquest and power, and I say that as a Byzantine appreciator. Though Byzantium was very influential on the cultural and religious side of things and enjoyed periods of prosperity and artistic flourishment, on the territorial side, its history is indeed, broadly, a thousand years of decline. Sure, it was not a one way trip all along its course, but even the periods of reconquest were almost only ever that: REconquest of previously owned territories, and even those became gradually smaller and less effective.
You might say it is unfair to the Byzantines as they are, in essence, the second part of Roman history, and that the study of another civilization would not start halfway onwards, but it's the very point: Byzantine history as a subject is just that: the study of the second half of a civilization's history, and since it's a dead civilization, decline is to be expected.
I always found it funny how they say 'thousand years of decline' when the Eastern Romans outlasted so many of their rivals (Sassanids, Umyyads, Abbasids, Seljuks, Latin Empire). Combined with being arguably the greatest medieval state until the end of the 12th century/beginning of the 13th century.
ye let's not forget what happened when the eastern rome finally fell (shit up to austria was gobbled up by the ottomans and it took quite an effort to even stop them)
Still they also lost a lot of power, land and control even its early days. And they were hanging on by a thread a couple of times, which were then followed by shorter periods of restoration and rise.
"Greatest medieval state until the XIIIth century" lmfao 😂🤣🤣 It was constantly in top 8 and when it was in top 4-5 it was because the states ahead were so much more powerful and influent. Touch grass - just be the right type of grass. 😂
@@Samuil-iq6ebuntil Angelos dinasty it was the most rich and powerful, maybe the abbassid caliphate surpassed them (until they exploded).
@@vesrra8185 😂😂🤣🤣🤣 In what Walmart store did you learn history? 🤣
In Romania we have a pretty badass name for the Byzantine empire, which is by far the most used: "Imperiul Roman Răsăritean" which means "Eastern Roman Empire", but if you translate it directly it actually means: "Roman Empire of the Dawn", since the sun rises from the east. Similarly, the Western Roman Empire is: "Roman Empire of the Dusk". Pretty accurate considering how quickly it collapsed.
Romanians get my respect for actually still speaking a Latin language out there. Surrounded by determined non-Latins.
I cannot take Constantinople seriously as a "Roman" concern being solidly Greek since before Mycenae.
@@zimriel It's because you're ignorant and you know nothing about Rome. The Romans themselves were speaking Greek, but the Greeks didn't speak Latin, a clearly inferior language both in structure and power in the words and their meaning. It is no surprise that the Bible was written in Greek. You will probably say I'm a proud Greek, but you're still young. Someday you'll understand. Maybe.
@@zimriel Yeah, I'm proud that we didn't get assimilated by the slavs like the rest of the Romans that used to be here. I guess there is some merit to the name "Romania".
And yeah, Constantinople is more of a Greek concern.
@@kevinboros7427 Ironically, Byzantines themselves called their country Romania, i.e. land of the Romans, but people can't use that term nowadays without risk of confusion with the modern country of Romania. More ironically, Romania got into a very similar sort of confusion with their flag and the flag of Chad. ;P
gah damn that slaps
My fellow Romans we should understand that byzantines are romans
Note:I am not saying that greeks are romans but Eastern Roman Empire which is called byzantine empire is eastern half of the the ROMAN EMPIRE so i was saying that byzantine state is True heir of the roman empire
Note 2:Friends, what I am trying to explain is not whether the ethnic origin of the Byzantine state was Roman or greek.The state structure of the Byzantine state,which has changed over time(which is normal because theese guys were on the stage of history until 1453)but the Romans created this state structure.Not every emperor of the roman empire was ethnically Roman but we call them Roman emperors now.So,as you can sen this discussion is about carrying on the legacy of the Roman empire.Let me give you an example the ottomans,they were ethnically Turkish,but they used practices similar to those used by romans(not all practices but some of theme similar)in the state structure,and they ruled places where romans once ruled.of course they were not romans or third rome,but byzantine's is roman ethnically , culturally,polically roman and they were speaking greek not the same greek but still byzantine state is roman whether its people were roman or not .I hope what I wrote can be understood.Byzantium is Rome and debate is over!!!!
It just…hurts to see the boys lose. Easier to distance yourself from it
No they weren’t. They were Gayreeks.
@@GAIVSCALIGVLA ok in sometime they were then they start to become greeks
@@GAIVSCALIGVLA Exactly.
As a former Byzantium enjoyer, I can say that while Roman fans tend to be quite chill and interested in history Eastern Roman Empire fanboys are generally obnoxious and more interested in larping for religious reasons.
@@AnonymousAnonposterI'm pretty sure they wouldn't be as obnoxious if historians gave the ERE the credit it deserves. Sure, did it profoundly influence the West for thousands of years to come? No, but arguably it was great in its own regard just like its ancient counterpart. It made significant contributions to architecture, philosophy, law, bureaucracy and technology and lasted for over 1,123 years. That's pretty impressive if you ask me.
Now like, I understand why historians don't give as much credit to the ERE but as a Byzantium enjoyer I just wish we'd get mainstream historians at least giving it a nod of respect.
(I also love Ancient Rome btw lmao)
It's not unpopular - just geographically unknown to the rest of the western world.
Western historians: "... And so Rome fell in 476 AD and the world was plunged into darkness as the empire crumbled and civilization completely collapsed. Oh, woe is our history..."
Eastern historians: "So, the Roman Empire lost a good chunk of land in 476 AD but kept chugging along for another millennium. Who wants to read about Basil Boulgaroktonos next?"
Based Eastern Historians vs loser westoid historians
It’s struck into our teachings. I’m a sophomore in the U.S. and my AP world history teacher never mentions the Byzantine empire in relation of Rome. He only says Rome fell in 1453 and only talks about the Byzantines when it comes to glorifying the ottomans or explaining the great schism + fourth crusade. I don’t blame him personally but i think it’s what they were taught to teach
My country in SE Asia, did teach about Eastern Roman Empire, mostly during Heraklius' reign. But the way they picture him is pretty unfair as he is pictured to be incompetent and arrogant for being easily defeated by Arabs and harshly rejected Prophet Muhammad's letter for him to accept Islam. While I too think that way of him when I was at school, when I step into university world, I grow simpaty for him. He is a good emperor for caring for people by killing Phokas and trying his best to hold Sasanid's invasion. It's just that The Eastern Roman Empire has it's own crisis and pretty tired from the war with Sasanid. So when the Arab strikes, the empire cannot do much.
Brother, the West invented modern history. Including the term Byzantine.
So was that SE Asia is in Indonesia or Muslim countries? Like Islamic historiography would interact with Byzantines and tend to call them as "Romans" (even influential Islamic figures like Abu Bakr and Mu'awiya made a name on their conflict with them), But Burma/Myanmar--basing on British narrative of world history--barely mentioned Eastern Roman Empire and West seems to be more mentioned.@@captaintorchman1046
"You think the Byzantine Empire was Roman?"
"I do. And I'm tired of pretending it's not."
How I feel everytime my compratriots and the Greeks buy into anti-italian narrative ( they think their ancestors were Celts and they like ij fucking Tuscany)
Being from Greece, it's always fun to me how Ancient Greece is so revered in the West, yet the Eastern Roman Empire, which became more Greek than Roman from a point forward, given that Greek became the official language and the majority of the population was Greek. I never got how Ancient Greece got the darling treatment, while Byzantium got the last seat at back of the room. Backwards Asiatics? These are at large the ancestors of the ancient Greeks you all admire so much. And it completely erases all the cultural importance of the Empire. Poitiers is haled as the battle that stopped the Arabic excursions into Europe by the Western world, but what about the two times the Caliphate was repulsed from the walls of Constantinople? What if Constantinople fell? Wouldn't the road to Europe be open? The Eastern Roman Empire is an empire that in all its centuries fought different invaders, with no allies, non stop and managed to survive for a thousand years. They fought in Italy, in the Balkans, in Asia Minor, in Mesopotamia, Syria, Lebanon, Israel..... They fought Huns, Goths, Avars, Persians, Arabians, Slavs, Bulgarians, Rus, Normans, Crusaders, all kinds of pillaging tribes, Seljuks and Ottomans before they were finally brought down. That deserves some recognition, doesn't it? And to the person that said that the Eastern Empire was just infighting unlike Rome, was he informed about the crisis of the 3rd century? Honestly, the best representation of the Eastern Roman Empire in popular media, and the only one I need, is Gondor in The Lord of the Rings. I just hope more people knew what it was based upon.
The Roman Empire both the original one and the Bynzantine version were not Greek, they were Anatolian. Even ancient Greece was Anatolian. Your entire history is made by these historians bcos they realized how backwards Asiatics were in fact the superior ones.
@@user-gu7lv9gk8m did you just read what you said? How is Ancient Greece not Greek? How is the Eastern Roman Empire not Greek? Modern day Greece is literally based culturally upon the Eastern Roman Empire. The population of the Eastern Roman Empire was literally Greek in its majority. Greek was both the common spoken language and also became the official language of the state. Greece is definitely Greek in all of its history and it's baffling how you say it's not. But the Greek civilization/ space of influence has always been in direct contact with the civilisations of the East and therefore has been greatly influenced by them. Greece isn't a western or eastern country, it stands between the two and thus has influenced and also been influenced by both. In a certain way, Greece is the middleman between the Civilisations of Mesopotamia, Egypt etc and Western Europe.
It is truly absurd. The reverence of ancient Greece seems to exist as little more than a Hollywood fantasy for some people, who choose not to apply those facts to the rest of history. Even if some purists would like to say the ERE wasn't truly Roman, what are they basing this purity test upon? Roman culture? The very culture that relies heavily upon a foundation of ancient Greek culture? Or maybe the argument is that it is religious purity -- even though the man who legitimatized Christianity, therefore the branches of Catholicism and Orthodoxy alike, was the namesake for the capital of the ERE and had a Greek mother. I don't know where they get this idea that being Catholic is more Roman than being Orthodox.
@@DeveusBelkanloved this
Well, it's pretty obvious... The Byzantine empire was the perfect example of Caesaropapism and was an absolute monarchy!! During the Renaissance they tried to revive the ancient Greek ideals and everything relating to classical antiquity, so the Byzantine empire had to take a backseat and rightfully so. The fun fact however is that the Renaissance cultural movement probably wouldn't have developed IF Byzantine scholars didn't bring with them precious manuscrips when they emigrated to the west following the fall of Costantinople. In other words, most of the things we know today about ancient Greece and classical Rome we owe it to the Byzantines who preserved those precious manuscrips in their libraries throughout the centuries...
Here in Czechia, we never really hear the word Byzantine. It is, or at least always was, "Východořímská říše"- Eastern Roman Empire.
And even though we do not really realise it conciously, it is the Eastern Romans who gave us our first writing, who gave us our early Christian architecture and whose missionaries baptised our pagan Dukes. Even though we are a culturaly Caltholic nation today, we owe a lot to Constantinople!
They weren't "Eastern Romans". There was only one Roman Empire, even in the years that it was unofficially divided in two. The only acceptable and accurate name is Roman or Rhomaioi. Don't perpetrate common myths made to discredit the Romans of the east.
@@nonregemesse By Eastern Romans he probably means Romans living in the East, i.e. in the eastern half of the empire, or the eastern provinces.
@@nonregemesse what about the east west split dork
I will say though, czechia historically was a protestant nation, but was simply forced back into being catholic (same with hungary).
@@memeboi6017 then just basically not orthodox
I think its mainly because of the common misconception that, after the fall of the west, Europe was pretty much in a state of total decline until Charlemagne three centuries later, when there was an entire half of the empire left in Constantinople and even some of the barbarian kingdoms having their own interesting histories
I'm reporting your channel for your very obvious anti-Greek bias and discrimination. I usually like your videos, but this one and the "B-word" video have been of really poor quality. Seriously, you call yourself an historian while professing the most basic racist anti-Greek myths created in the West? Hope you make better videos again in the future.
Because for a lot of people, the concept of “Europe” means France and England, not the Balkans. France and England were shitholes, and since France and England ruled the world, everyone applies that same label of shithole to the rest of Europe.
The obvious reason is that the Roman Empire actually interacted with Western Europe which is what most of European history focuses on because most relevant European countries were and are in the west
@@yujirohanmaisbestdadonly in name
@@Lucius_Aurelian The HRE was a nation of Roman want-to-bes. Russia and the Ottomans had just as much claim to be the Roman Empire as the HRE, which is none at all.
In Missouri, USA we covered Byzantine history in our world history class in public high school. It’s was in our text books, there was never a negative image presented, it was definitely presented as the continuation of Rome. I always had the impression that Constantinople was far richer and more impressive than Rome.
yeah, Rome was never the best city in the Med. Alexandria and Antioch overshadowed Rome even when Rome was at its peak (as Rome).
Later of course even the Romans slipped out of the capital and used Milan or Ravenna as the capital.
Absolutely. In the year 1000, Rome had 30.000 inhabitants. Constantinople? 800.000. The Queen city of all cities. The City!
Yes. What amazed me when I visited Istanbul is how long the bus rides from, say, Aia Sophia to the western walls of Constantinople. It would be a very big city even today.
@@giannisgiannopoulos791 800,000? You’re certain it wasn’t 500,000?
@@wildfire9280 Sources vary in their estimations. I have read somewhere that during the Macedonian dynasty, the population was somewhat less than a million, but I've seen numbers like half a million or even 700.000.
The exhibition of Byzantine Art at the Metropolitan Museum was a sensation and turned many people to rethink their attitude toward it as a whole.
Where can i see it?
It's long over. But there are three volumes published by the Metropolitan Museum covering the entirety of Byzantine art.
There's currently an exhibition there about African-Byzantine art (North Africa and Ethiopia mainly), just saw it and would certainly recommend.
Hollywood prefers to give Western Roman and Viking history instead of Eastern History in general. The Byzantine and Bulgarian saga would make a great tv show, as long as both sides are properly represented...
Yeah, I think only western made Byzantine Fantasy is Turtledove’s book about Krispos, who is metaphor for Basil the Macedonian (an impoverished peasant who became an Emperor and formed a dynasty).
That and Dragon Age’s Tevinter (at least their contention with Qunari as a nod to Byzantine-Arab conflicts and a pinch of Crusades).
Sadly, I don't think that is possible when you think about the things that netflix and other companies are putting out. Actually scratch that. I am hopeful that they won't touch the subject. The last thing I want to see is lets say Krum or some bulgarian ruler or byzantine being depicted as black. That is a disgusting though.
@@thehussar9399 Worse would be trying to "subvert" the contentious relationship that the eastern romans had with the east, by trying to make it look like muslims weren't invading (they totally were) but rescuing, weren't enslaving (they totally were, janissaries/sultan harems are a perfect example of this) but freeing, etc. Cause I could see them do just that. Rescuing and freeing the poor christian europeans from foul christianity and europeaness.
@@thehussar9399 Netflix wouldn't dare depict the pale death of the saracens in a positive light
My face when Basil is a black man :
In university I took classes in Roman history and not once did they mention that the Byzantines were the continuation of the Roman state. Every textbook spoke of them as a separate political entity. The term Eastern Romans never appeared and their history was written in a manner that treated them as a separate political entity with little or no connection with ancient Rome.
Needless to say, I was blown away when I discovered that the Roman state survived another 1000 years!
stupid ass westoid books
That is very surprising to hear. I gathered that some saw it/ were taught about it as "remains" of the Roman Empire. Or "continuation", "surviving", etc. But not that it isn't mentioned and recognized as a Roman Empire.
The byzantines controlled ROME in 500 A.D.
So how could that happen? lol
@@Ralampos Rome was in Ostrogothia in 500 lmao.
Textbooks do a really good job of disconnecting the dots I feel. Growing up learning about Egypt/Greece/Rome/etc implied that these were all independent nations instead of straight up contemporaries and rivals. Our history is so interconnected....
10:52 "The History of the Empire is a monstrous story of the intrigues of ... women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude, of perpetual fratricides."
To be fair that also sounds a helluva lot like the Empire's Julio-Claudian period.
Constantine’s sons fit the fratricide part given the big OOF that was Constantine II
Sounds like a great setting for stories.
Even Eastern Rome had inherited the "civil wars" legacy of the Principate and the Dominate era.
As a Chinese, I fully understand why this phenomenon occurs.
The barbarians worshiped the ancient civilization, from which they learned the basis of everything and claimed to have inherited everything from this ancient civilization. So when the true successors of this ancient civilization still continue to exist, he will belittle the true successors, so as to make the barbarians themselves look more like the orthodox successors of the ancient civilization.
This phenomenon also exists in Chinese civilization.
Japan was defeated by China during the Tang Dynasty, and China defeated a large Japanese army with a small army, which shocked the Japanese.From then on, Japan continued to send envoys to the Tang Dynasty to study the system, technology and culture.After the Tang Dynasty came the Song Dynasty, which was like the Armenian Dynasty and the Macedonian Dynasty of East Roman Empire.
But after the Song Dynasty, China experienced two dynasties established by barbarians, namely the Yuan Dynasty of the Mongols and the Qing Dynasty of the Manchus, and between them there was the Ming Dynasty of the Han Chinese, so they were not continuous.
But in modern times, Japan, through British help and its own reforms, began to lead China in technology and culture.Therefore, in order to steal the glory of Chinese civilization, the Japanese claimed that modern Chinese are descendants of Mongolians and Manchurians, their culture is also Mongolian and Manchurian culture, and Japan is the orthodox successor of Chinese civilization.
This is the same as the Germanic barbarians.
For the ancient Roman Empire that rose earlier than the barbarians, the true Roman Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) that existed at the same time as the fake Roman Empire (Holy Roman Empire) prevented the barbarians from stealing the Glory of Roman Empire, so the barbarian Hieronymus Wolf reduced the Eastern Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire when recording history, and made excuses that was to distinguish ancient Rome from Eastern Rome and the Holy Roman Empire.This is extremely ridiculous. If you need to distinguish between these "Rome", then the one that needs to be renamed should be the disgusting "Holy Roman Empire" rather than the real Roman Empire.
In fact, the barbarians in Western Europe claimed that they inherited the glory of the Roman Empire. Although it was not true, they did establish modern industrial civilization after learning from the achievements of major civilizations around the world.
But the Japanese are the most ridiculous.
Japan has not inherited Chinese culture. The Japanese have long been regarded as semi-barbarians by the Chinese in ancient times.Because Japan is geographically isolated from the East Asian continent, it is difficult for Japan to obtain technology from China, the center of civilization, which makes Japan lag behind Korea, Vietnam, and Ryukyu.
The rise of Japan in modern times is not because Japan inherited the glory of Chinese civilization, but precisely because the Japanese abandoned Chinese civilization and turned to learn from Western civilization. Therefore, it is extremely ridiculous for Japan to claim that it has inherited Chinese civilization.
In addition, neither the Mongols nor the Manchus interrupted China's cultural heritage. They established dynasties using Chinese systems. The Qing Dynasty only changed their clothing and hairstyles, but the social system and culture remained unchanged.
But there are so many claimants to the legacy of Rome. The Catholic Church, Byzantine Empire, Russia with Moscow as the Third Rome, Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Napoleon and the French Empire, the Habsburg’s Dynasty and Austro-Hungarian Empire, Mussolini and Italian Fascism, Nazis and the Third Reich, finally, America as the new Rome.
@@Rnankn No, they are not. They just claim to have inherited Rome, these countries do not have any Roman elements. They do not belong to the Mediterranean civilization. Even Turkey is closer to Eastern Rome than these countries.
I normally dont read long comments, but I enjoyed your insights and knowledge of history. It seems that across different lands and time periods, there will always be a group of people that think they are superior to everyone else.
❤
@@DavidLopez-rk6em The technological and cultural leadership is an objective reality, and you can never deny this point of view.
My first introduction to Byzantine history was as a lowly 6th grader, and only briefly learning about Justinian, Theodora, and Belisarius. My 12 year old self found them eminently fascinating and inspiring characters. While my overall knowledge of Byzantine history has come much, much later, as an adult, those seeds were planted deep within my nerdy soul. They are, to this day, among my top favorite historical figures.
For me it was 7th grade.
most homo reddit thing ive read all year. thanks for the free cringe.
Interesting… wonder what schools y’all went to lol. I don’t think I learned a single thing about Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome, let alone anything about Byzantium until after I graduated high school and started independently studying history.
@@Notimportant253 I grew up in an American suburb. While my family and neighborhood weren't particularly rich or affluent (at the time), I lived in a relatively affluent city, and got a fairly decent K12 education. Though I've always loved history, even as a little kid (think 1st grade) and so I read and studied a lot on my own. Places like the Byzantine Empire only got the briefest of passing mentions, and we never spent more than a week on important civilizations, in years with world history and global geography. Most civilizations got one or two days at most, or got a few paragraphs in the textbook one day. A lot of what I learned about history, I learned on my own, and not from school, per se. School was just a hook point for me.
for me it was 7th grade, and my teacher was teaching us about Alexios komnenos and the first crusade
I’ve often wondered why so many people believe that Rome fell due to Christianity and hate Constantine the Great for converting the Empire. This is a great video.
People always look out for scapegoats. They completely ignore that Rome was already struggling big time before Constantine during the crisis of the third century.
@@gothia1715and constantine stablized
@@deutschesvaterlandfankanal right on
Constantine and his Christian reforms if anything helped Rome, neo-pagoons and anti-Christians just want to find an excuse to insult The One True Faith.
If anything, Christianity prolonged the lifespan of the empire.
Byzantium has some pretty decent representation in historical strategy games. I think that's another entry point for people to realize how much we have neglected this awesome piece of our history. ...After all, it sure worked for me. XD
I think videogames have been the strongest force for Byzantine acceptance among the youth.
Of course it's fucking Voltaire, that ungodly arch-villain.
Anti-Voltaire gang
Voltaire is such a loser.
god doesn’t exist, grow up
@@Norcat10
*Everything that begins to exist has a cause:* Anything that comes into existence must have a cause or explanation. This is based on the principle of causality, which is a fundamental concept in classical metaphysics.
*The universe began to exist.* This is supported by scientific evidence, particularly the Big Bang theory. The expansion of the universe points to a definite beginning, and if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause.
*Therefore, the universe has a cause.* Combining the first two premises, we must conclude that there must be a cause for the universe's existence. This cause is understood to be transcendent, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful - characteristics that align with the traditional concept of God.
The cause is transcendent because it is not bound by the physical laws and limitations of the universe it brought into existence. It exists beyond or outside the created order.
The cause is timeless because it is thought to exist independently of time. Since time is a component of the universe, which is seen as having a definite beginning, the cause is considered to be unbounded by time.
The cause is spaceless because it is not limited by the spatial dimensions of the universe. It exists independently of any physical location.
The cause is immaterial, emphasizing its non-physical nature. In contrast to the material and physical aspects of the universe, the cause is believed to lack material substance.
The cause is attributed with enormous power to bring about the creation of the entire universe. This immense power is necessary to initiate the existence of everything within the cosmos.
@@Norcat10 Voltaire himself would disagree with that since he was a deist
Strategy games definitely increased the popularity of Byzantium, for example look at their popularity in EU4 that starts 9 years before 1453 and where on paper the Byzantines are just "snack number 15" for the massive Ottomans nearby. They punch far above their weight, and it's not even for an extreme challenge as some nations have a much more desperate start than they do.
But for mainstream culture, historical movies are already far behind other genres like superheros so there is a long road to having a good blockbuster, even if it's as inaccurate as Gladiator.
Crusader kings 2 was really the first place I got any interest in Byzantium. In that game they are incredibly powerful through much of the time period that you can play.
@@freeofmefree for me it was AOE2, seeing that a civ is the continuation of the Romans, with an insanely good unique unit (the cataphract) and defensive bonuses making it a safe choice for beginners.
@@freeofmefreedito ck2 was when I first heard of the eastern Roman empire rome survived a lot longer then we all thought
I learned about byzantines in AoE2
@@freeofmefree byzantium is too easy in every strategy game except total war really, unless you're brand new to the game you won't really experience the same agony irl emperors would've gone through which is sad
Greetings from Russia, where most of the traditions of architecture and culture are Byzantine. There is no way around it :)
How do your other countrymen feel about it? How many know about it?
@@doncorleone1553 Well, there has been a cultural renaissance lately, so more and more people are disliking communism and going back to the roots, so most people are rather positive about it, particularly the younger generation. Everyone who went to school knows about it, because it is the basis of history, as well as the concept of "Moscow is the Third Rome", which has been talked about since the beginning of the study of history.
@@user-tr2jp4si3fYes it is unfortunate among older generations that they seem to feel Russian history began with the Bolshevik revolt. I am glad to hear you appreciate this history at least.
Saying architecture in Russia is Byzantine is really a stretch, it's like saying that European architecture is Roman. In the beginning it was influenced by Byzantium but it hardly survived outside churches. Architecture in Russia is mostly classical (imperial) and later brutalist (socialist).
“I think about the Byzantine Empire often”
The funny thing is I was thinking of making a little tribute to the city of Constantinople, while searching for footage for the background I realized that there are almost no depictions of the Eastern Roman Empire in media (no period piece or historical dramas)... western media at least.
I noticed this. Its a great shame
Oddly enough muslims have better depictions of it (albeit extremely limited amount of media) than the west, and actually recognizes them as Romans.
This video is making me hate Voltaire. Enlightenment thinkers were the r/atheism of their day
@@SonofTiamat It's true. He'd have reddit gold if he were alive in modern times
@@SonofTiamat Literally. There's a reason so many atheistic (or r/atheism) talking points are practically copy/pasting "EnLiGhTeNmEnT" figures.
This reminds me of how hellenistic history ignored the seleucids for centuries , but now there's a flowering of new research on the topic. The east has risen, millions must live.
When I was a child I found a book at home called simply "Byzantium". I think it was love at first sight, and I was only 10 years old. It was beautifully illustrated, and the reading was so interesting. I think I loved Byzantium precisely because it was so exotic, so unique and so different from the mainstream "Rome". It was familiar and distant at the same time. I clearly remember how I felt (sad) when I did read about the last century of Byzantium. It motivated me to learn (at that age) the Greek alphabet, and also, later when I was a grown man, I planned my trip to Istanbul, just to breath the air of Constantinople and see the vestiges of old Byzantium still present there... I think I'm going to look for that book these days, I think I still can find it somewhere at mom's house.
Greatings from Greece, what a beautiful comment!
I have a degree in history from a good Greek university and when I was a student I was unbearably bored with Byzantine history.
I appreciated it later by studying the history of the medieval west, where you easily understand how big a geopolitical magnitude was what we learned to call the Byzantine Empire. When you understand the example, the gold coin of the Byzantines was worth more than the dollar today.
The same happens when you approach Byzantium from the point of view of the Arabs.
The world would not be the same if what we call Byzantine did not exist.
@@Eumenis thank you for your reply. By the way, I found that book I mentioned, my mother kept it safe for years. I took it to a book restoration shop and now it's in very good condition, so I think I will try to re-learn that history.
I'd love a quality 6 part HBO drama about various periods of the Eastern Roman Empire. If done well it would be such fresh, compelling and interesting content.
What would you choose as the six parts?
And this time don't let Germans make it like Netflix. 🤮
Another show about Polly Walker’s nipples but with iconoclasm this time?
@@nealkriesterer
Episode 1: "Constantine's Vision"
Title: "The Foundation of Constantinople"
Years Covered: Approx. 306 AD to 330 AD
This period includes the reign of Emperor Constantine, the decision to move the capital, and the establishment of Constantinople.
Episode 2: "Theodosius the Great"
Title: "Theodosius I"
Years Covered: Approx. 379 AD to 395 AD
This episode can cover the reign of Theodosius I, including the Council of Constantinople and efforts to maintain unity within the empire.
Episode 3: "Justinian's Byzantium"
Title: "The Rise of Justinian I"
Years Covered: Approx. 527 AD to 565 AD
This episode focuses on the reign of Justinian I, his building projects, military campaigns, and the challenges faced during the Nika Riots.
Episode 4: "The Black Death Strikes"
Title: "The Plague of Justinian"
Years Covered: Approx. 541 AD to 542 AD
Explore the impact of the Plague of Justinian on the Eastern Roman Empire, its societal and economic consequences, and subsequent recovery.
Episode 5: "Shattered Images"
Title: "The Iconoclast Controversy"
Years Covered: Approx. 726 AD to 843 AD
This episode covers the period of the Iconoclast Controversy, exploring religious tensions, political maneuvering, and cultural implications.
Episode 6: "The Last Stand"
Title: "The Fall of Constantinople"
Years Covered: Approx. 1453 AD
This episode culminates in the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks under Mehmet II, marking the end of the Eastern Roman Empire.
My first contact with the Eastern Roman Empire was thanks to Age Of Empires II.
I don´t regret anything of it.
Age of empires was for historians what top gun was for fighter pilots
Mine too!
@@JM-mh1pp Totally!.
Mine was *Attila: Total War* . Oh the sweet sweet 5% compound interest
@@sasi5841 me a person who found it because i typed in purple flag
"The history of the byzantines is a monstrous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs, and women - of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude, of perpetual fratricides. If I believed that, I wouldn't want to learn about the Empire either."
If someone had told the Byzantine Empire was about that from the start I'd wanted to have learned about to sooner! Hell, entry-level Chinese Imperial history is basically this, and y'know what? Both make for FANTASTIC drama!
Anyways, I'd like to put forward a way simpler reason as to why Byzantine history isn't as popular in the public consciousness even now: it's just way harder to follow who's who. It's the same reason that when you get to the Constantinian Dynasty a lot of people check out, tons and tons of historical figures just end up with the same name, sharing half a name, or having names which sound similar enough to the puny anglo tongue. You yourself have run into this issue in trying to retell some of the stories. So combined with not having those really evocative Roman busts to put names to faces, it becomes a bit harder to build a narrative out of. And pop history is built on narrative, it's why the end of the republic/start of the empire is more or less the only bit of Rome that gets any real silver screen play - because everyone has a really distinct name and the cast list is relatively small. There are no almost movies about the Severans, after all.
It's why I give big props to using CK3's character creator in your videos. It provides a very VERY good visual aid to help tell the story.
If I had a pit of fuck you money- I'd bankroll a Netflix/Last Kingdom type historical drama series based on Justinian, Theodora, and Belisarius. And I would be up for bankrolling a series on any other Byzantine era that people would want.
To be fair Byzantium also had its fair share of soldier emperors
@@trevortidwell9047 Arguably "Foundation" is this.
"ew, women"
The byzantines nor classical Europe created eunuchs. It is a common mis understanding.
Paradox seems like it's quite influential to the public when it comes to Byzantine history! I didn't even know the Byzantine Empire was a thing until I played ck2. Now I have a degree in it.
not knowing about byzantium is a skill issue tbh
Because people wanna larp as the roman empire and when they find about about the eastern roman empire, well they larp
if it isn't an empire suffering 1000 years of decline then why is it the best place to send a spy to extort degenerates for money?
Anthony Kaldellis is doing the Lord's work on this subject! I've read Byzantine Republic and Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood, and they have really opened up a new way of looking at the Eastern Romans.
The ancient stricken, notable other than this, enlighteners were so biased. They hated Christianity and the Church, and just because the Eastern Roman Empire was a Christian state, they hated it too. The courageous defender of the European borders against the infidel, the bastion of faith and the Greco-Roman civilization and its legacy, the great Eastern Roman Empire, will eventually find its place in the most illustrious pages of the history books, just exactly as it was. 1123 years of glory!
You're the exact thing you declare to hate: a laughable biased person. 😂 Shame!
Yeah OK, calm down.
amigo you just prove them right
@@alicev5496 Try not to think in retrospect, but how the people were thinking back in the day. You make the same mistake like them
Listen not to justify them, but you got to understand that the enlightenment was just shy 20 years removed from the 30-year's war, a war that devastated central Europe with a death toll between 4.5 to 8 million soldiers and civilians, started out as a continuing conflict between the catholics , Lutherans and protestant divide in the 16th century, so you could see some people getting sour at the time with things and concepts that existed at the time
Yet again a beautiful video, I’m saddened to see the popular opinion of the HRE and ERE degraded due to people like Voltaire, then you and others come to restore it! I wish people what you do for the HRE and maybe the crusader states but regardless it restores some of my faith in humanity to see this.
My strictly male line paternal ancestors came from the HRE and I'm proud of it.
The more I read of Voltaire the more hilariously wrong I realize he was about most things. How does anybody take him seriously?
Truly said both HRE and the Greeks while we shit post against each other often both stood as the continuation of Roman and Christendom in the world.
@@semi-useful5178Because people that promoted his ideas won the wars.
@@Projolo
Good thing they're losing the peace now.
A tv series following John Kourkouas, Tzmiskies, Nikephoros Phokas and Basil II would be a dream
Agree.
I've always been more of a fan of medieval Byzantium than of antique Rome tbh- the Byzantines have their own, IMO cooler aesthetic of ancient grandeur along with "institutional maturity" as I like to call it, not to mention the fact they were probably more efficient than Rome at surviving. Surviving 1000 years of barb invasions while being fucked by nature (536, 1340s etc.) is a monumental feat (or rather, set of monumental feats).
Byzantine was a poor great great grand child of the vast Roman Empire.
... "more efficient than Rome at surviving"??? Seriously???Aren't you aware that the existence and history of Western Rome was incredibly longer than Byzantium or the Eastern side? One thing is to keep existing after the collapse of Rome, but the existence as a whole of that Eastern side was much shorter. Imagine you go on a road that is 100 km long, and then that road stops and you keep going on another road that is 20km long... don't you see how silly would be to say that the second road is longer than the first one??? you say it is longer just because it comes afterwards!!! hahhahha Besides, institutional Byzantium was crazy and terribly unstable, killing each other all the time... and you call that maturity. You are very mature, yes...
@@screambeyond 759+476 is just about 1235 years. 1453-476=977, or more realistically, 1453-395=1058. Not that much longer.
Also, Byzantium had to deal with way better organized enemies than Rome did. In fact, western Rome could only live for 3 centuries while fighting the types enemies Byzantium had to deal with. That is to say, Barbarians managed to bring the western half of Rome at its height to complete ruin within 3 centuries, from the Marcomannic war to Odoacer. Byzantine power, on the other hand, fought off well-organized Bulgarians, Khazars, other Slavs, the MUSLIM CALIPHATE for fuck's sake, the Seljuks, and survived an impressively long time against the Ottomans, and had 3 times more staying power. Why wasn't there a pax Byzantica? Because the barbarians had gotten far more effective, and wars became almost constant, unlike the Rome of antiquity.
And to your other point, only in classical Rome did internal powers divide the state in 3, needing an unearthly commander to put it back together (Aurelian). And only classical Rome managed to cycle through 77 emperors in 500 years when Byzantium took 1000 to kill off 93. Talk about a shift in political stability. Of course, Byzantium was chaotic at times, but it was absolutely better at managing itself than classical Rome.
"Classical Rome and Greece were supposed to be the progenitors of "the West" , and the Persians empire was the embodiment of the "the East". These two weren't supposed to be linked at all, So the Byzantine history with its fusion of western and eastern influences was dismissed and ignored."
Don't tell the enlightenment movement that since then we learned that how Ionian awakening were influenced by the Persian / Mesopotamia and we see ancient Egyptian influence in early / mid archaic Greece statues and other arts / materials left over.
That has nothing to do with the actual civilization that ancient Greeks created. Since they first created this separation btw thrm and Asia. The free political entities and eastern despotism etc.
That's a concept created in classical Greece after the Persian wars and greatly because of the Persian invasion. Even if thr Greek world replaced Persia in the East thr next centuries, this idea of East-West influenced Rome through the classical education (even if Rome itself became a despotic empire as the Persian one) and through Rome this idea influenced the Western Europe 🤷♂️ So, it has nothing to do with influences btw civilizations and what those shared.
You're doing great work yourself romaboo, for informing the laymen that the roman empire stuck around far longer than commonly thought.
It never really died.
@@semi-useful5178I can’t see it anywhere, unless if you mean the Papal State
@@sebe2255
Every Element of our society comes from one of three places: Alchemy, Christianity, and Rome LARP
For those of us who are still part of the Eastern Roman Empire (a.k.a. ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN), it is still alive. We are waiting for the rest of the world to catch up and go through the evolution of ancient philosophy leading to Christendom as it originated. One era continued and bled into the other. On the more visual aspects of it, one only needs to realize that the colors used in ancient Greece in their temples and the Roman Era and in the frescoes and the mosaics, especially, are the very colors you find to this day all over the Orthodox Churches wherever they may be found. They depict the same Greco-Romans. On the one side of history pagan and on the other side martyred for Christ. It was a continuation and a recognition of CHRIST (the one SOCRATES Himself spoke about). It was the original "restart". Nothing the self-proclaimed "enlightened" will say or do can change that, no matter how advanced their technology becomes or their schemes and planning. There in lies all the defamation of the Eastern and only true ROMAN CHRISTIAN EMPIRE. For It was not only Eastern it was Western as well, stretching all the way to Ireland and as far out beyond Syria and all the way to India (where there are still Christians from the first centuries). It's just that people of the West are now realizing what was hidden and put in the dark. Makes you wonder why it was really called the dark ages (for that was in the west only).
As a Greek, and an enthusiast of Roman (as a whole) history, I am fascinated by the "byzantine" history, as it is the perfect bridge between our classical/hellenistic and modern/national identity. I am glad that channels like yours exist so that they promote this underrated piece of world history, and hopefully we, as the Greek nation, will also start appreciating it more. Even for us it is regarded as somewhat of a religious rather than a historical topic, somewhat disconnected from the construct of our national identity, which puts more effort on highlighting the preservation of orthodoxy and greek language during Ottoman rule, rather than it's position as the lingua franca and state religion of an 1000-year-lasting empire.
we seriously need new movies in the West made about the Crusades and the Eastern Roman Empire.
and not in a negative light or secular nonsense.
the Crusades were a strategic decision to finally push back against the Islamic caliphates but unfortunately the results were poor. why?
because Jerusalem might have been the goal but Egypt is still a much more strategically important region of the Mediterranean region than Jerusalem ever was.
Egypt because if the Nile delta and river is basically the bread basket of half the Western world in the ancient and medieval period.
if Alexandria, Cairo and other Egyptian cities were captured by crusaders and defended well, Egypt today and probably the rest of North Africa might have been Christian instead of Islamic.
so many powerful European empires like the Spanish, French or British and yet they never conquered and converted north Africa to Christianity.
so stupid.
@@LevisH21fr man, history is an untapped market
Voltaire has never had single good take.
At least he was fair and hated both Romes
@@cristhianramirez6939 Because he was clearly retarded
for the record its important to recognize the era- the 1700s was the century that followed intense civil and religious war. England during the mid 1600's was for a few years a theocracy that banned Christmas and dancing.
In the same way that we have militant "anti-woke" people running around actions create reactions.
Voltaire's anger was partly due to the observations of the corruption of the Catholic Church in France.
@@MrChickennugget360funny how england is monarcy for all of its existance, except for 17th century when they basically "tried" almost everything else haha
If he lived in our time he’d be a raving Reddit atheist
Romaboo, thanks to channels like you and majorianus, the topic is slowly becoming more known. I owe a lot of my knowledge to you and the rest of them.
I know where I got my impression of Byzantium - history classes from school. You said it yourself, there is not that much popular depictions in the mainstream.
It was basically described as what remained of the Roman Empire and we did not focus on its inner working and history in itself, only when and how it related to our own. There were none of these negative descriptions though.
Thank you for sharing! This was an intriguing subject, and its very interesting to see how differently we all learned about it.
Where are you from? Roman history is common history for anyone in europe. Whereas Byzantine history is considered common history only to those in eastern Europe. For anyone educated in the West it makes sense not to dive to deep into Byzantine history. After all there is only so much you can teach so you need to be selective and focus on what is most relevant to the audience.
@@Ronnet "After all there is only so much you can teach so you need to be selective and focus on what is most relevant to the audience."
Oh, I agree completely. Of course that emphasises in history books will be different between Finland and Greece. So, objectively speaking, I think in that regard our curriculum was well balanced.
Great video! I hope the fascinating history of Eastern Rome gets the attention it deserves
I wonder how much of this is the modern Greek state choosing to identify with and promote (at least outside Greece) the classical Greek city states and Alexander the Great?
Rarely do you get the impression of them promoting their Roman past. Part of me wonders if this would have been different if the Megali Idea was realised.
Greek here... When the Greek state was first formed there was a sharp divide between the elites of the new state. On one hand you had people educated in Europe with Humanist and Enlightenment views and on the other hand the Fanariotes, educated in Constantinople. On the educational front the European faction won and the curriculum was heavily Classicist, with even an official language more close to ancient greek than medieval greek. This was not helped by the Fanariotes faction was quickly folded in to the Church itself a most conservative institution.
Greece has a ton of medieval architecture and relics, all of being fought over by archaeologists, clergy and military historians.
@@konst80humso basically you’re cracking down on the romaics and the Latin Greeks. Furthermore the modern Greek state always wanted Constantinople but because it was a greek state not because of the Byzantines
I think it does make sense to emphasize Hellenism as opposed to Romanism when you don’t even control your previously most important city and region, and capital of the Roman world.
@konst80hum what part did the failure to reclaim Constantinople and Greek lands in Anatolia play, regarding classicists coming out on top? Especially if you consider that modern Greece corresponds to roughly the classical Greek world (minus colonies), where as Constantinople is strongly and explicitly associated with Eastern Rome.
Do you think the Romanists would have come out on top if the Megali Idea was achieved? Especially since you'd have more land outside of the classical Greek area, could you see the use of the ERE for the national identity, unity and nation building?
Also, as a non-Greek, how do Greeks generally view the ERE? Do they view it positively? Is it history you are proud of?
@@rudolfnechvile5023 i’m not Greek but yes as far as I know from what the Greeks that I know and read about, taking Constantinople would have meant that the Greeks escaping Anatolia which were very bizantinophile and nationalistic would have probably took over. And yes the Greeks view it positively although they usually do not understand that hellenist Greece and Byzantine Greece did have two very different identities. It’s like comparing celtic France and Modern France … actually it’s like a middle ground between the difference of celtic France and modern France let’s say Frankish France and modern. Still the Romans ( the Italian ones) absolutely destroyed the Hellenic identity not threw brutal means but just by controlling it and making it core territory of the empire alongside Italy. The religion changed so did the language ( although the “Greek” language was reintroduced keeping it somewhat alive) but the change had already happened or u wouldn’t have had emperors born in Greece out of greek families identifying as Latins and sometimes even outright despising their subjects or not considering themselves part of them. The Hellenistic identity didn’t nevertheless die it just remained clinging on a small bit of cultural significance for its survival. Hadn’t the Rest of Europe been so classicist at the time and had the ottomans maintained it for a little likely there wouldn’t had been an hellenistic Greece to speak of today
The movie or series that needs to be made about the Eastern Roman Empire is the time from Emperor Maurice's betrayal, the despot of Phocas, Heraclius comes on the scene and falls into Rome's darkest hour since Hannibal, his re-emergence and saving of the Roman Empire, his meeting with Muhammad's messenger, Islam, and ultimate decline. It would be an amazing Greek tragedy.
Portraying Islam during Muhammad’s period is a very dangerous move.
@@ImperatorAugustus you don't need to portray Muhammad, just his messenger.
@@TonyFontaine1988 I know. Even then it’s very likely to cause outrage as even the slightest points can flare up. Even portraying Islam as antagonists can cause serious upheavals. Unfortunately that’s just how it is these days.
U mean Roman tragedy?
@@ImperatorAugustus And that's a good thing. You're a hypocrite for wanting accurate Roman representation and not Caliphal.
Absolutely brilliant video.....more please! I liked and subscribed! Thank you so much.
I learned about the existence of the Byzantine Empire from Age of Empires II (1999). It astonished me to discover that the Romans had not in fact fallen in 476, as I had thought. The idea that the Roman Empire continued for another thousand years into the Medieval age was like discovering that Santa Claus was real. Other games like Medieval Total War (2002) also featured the Byzantines. I am sure that there are many people of my generation who discovered Byzantium through this. And of course I read the John Julius Norwich books as soon as I could, at the time.
I mean Saint Nicholas is real (he's Santa Claus)
I do hope Byzantine history becomes more popular in the West. I have been working on a story that borrows from the Eastern Romans, primarily the Theme system.
I kind of wonder about Thyatis in the old, old "Known World" D&D system.
In my opinion, there is a certain degree of development in a history buffer life. Most of us started by being absolute fanatics of a WW2 nation (most Wehraboos or Tankies), but, as we start to learn more and more, we discover that history didn't start in 1936 as HoI4 tell us, but there is actually more lore behind the changes in colour of the maps, be it the German Empire or the Japanese Shogunate, we start dwelling into the dark and deep annals of history, and then, Rome appears. Once we get interested in the achievements of the Empire, we might become interested about it's entire history (which I learned bia the absolutely unbiased channel of Dovahhatty). Time passes as we learn and then reality strucks, that Greek empire nobody talked to you in depth that existed in medieval times? Yeah that's the sequel to the amazing history you are learning about Rome. All this process might take years, as history is incredibly big, but I've never found someone who stays in the same historical fandom for their entire life. Who knows? Maybe we will leave Eastern Rome behind one day, and move to another empire. China sounds interesting, right?
Where does HOI4 tell you that history started in 1936? I think a majority of people have a general very broad scope of history. In the west(western Europa atleast, can't speak for the US, Canada or eastern Europe) this would be through a surface level understanding of the ancient Greeks to the Romans to middle ages to the early modern period and then to WW1 & 2. There is not much depth to this knowledge however and this leads to entire parts of history being "ignored" or glossed over unintentionally such as the idea that the Roman empire didn't cease to exist in 476AD but instead continued to exist in the Balkans and Anatolia(Earlier on the Levant, Egypt and parts of Italy, Spain, and North Africa aswell) for another 1000 years until the conquest of the Ottomans.
I'm sorry but the first part of your comment is the most stereotypical HOI 4 player thing ever!
@@tiddodebont1124 my high school's canadian history course starts with WWI so its not that far off (though to be fair, you learn a little bit about the first nations, the settlers, the war of 1812, and Confederation in middle school)
Japanese media already beat us to the punch with China, as ancient China was basically Japan's version of the Roman Empire, ESPECIALLY the Han Dynasty. I mean shit, my first interest in history started due to Dynasty Warriors 4 on the PS2.
@@tiddodebont1124 I think you misunderstood me. What I'm trying to say is that a lot of the current History Buffers got into history by games like HoI4 and, with some time, started to expand their frontiers in terms of historical knowledge. When I talk about "history starting in 1936", I'm trying to say that one doesn't start by knowing everything, but they slowly gain more and more knowledge
@@MaelPlaguecrow6942 Gotta look into it, do you know any games or youtube channels in english that explain chinese history?
Thanks for the video. I am the most amateur of historians but have found these same biases too. Very interesting video. Now I want to find a couple of the books you referred to.
I only refer to it as “Eastern Rome” during the period of 395-476 A.D., when the empire existed alongside the West. After the fall of the West, I simply refer to it as “Rome” or “Medieval Rome.”
Rome as a culture stopped existing after the fifth century. Places like Byzantine were on the fringe of Rome.
Kind of weird to refer it it as Rome when for the vast majority of its history, it didn't actually own Rome.
Medieval Rome was in Italy, Rome. What you call medieval Rome had other culture, one that probably was culturally stranded from Rome and was more Greek and Asian. In fact when there was a possibility to take Istanbul from the Ottoman empire by Western countries they weren't to claim it but to... return? it to Greece or to the Russian Czar.
@@Meirstein It was legally the same entity at least until 1204, regardless of owned territory or cultural changes
@@Art-is-craft It was legally the same entity at least until 1204, regardless of owned territory or cultural changes
A Byzantine royalty got married with a German prince and brought with her forks because in Germany at that time, they were eating with hands, even in the court
And? Does it disgust your puny modern eating behaviour?
The Germans called her decadent, she called them barbaric lol
@@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901 Exactly, she was washing herself ,something very odd for the people in western Europe
@@user-gk9mj5bo2eLmao people washed themselves
@@user-gk9mj5bo2e actually no western Europeans washed themselves, especially nobility. The westerners would only eat with their right hand, they would have hand washing, strong etiquette around touching food, napkins were a big part of maintaining clean hands etc. you can be clean without using a knife and fork, after all I'm sure you've eaten hand food
If it weren't for the Eastern Roman Empire, those preeminent scholars of the Age of Enlightenment wouldn't be writing their books from their couches by wearing a wig; they would most probably praying on their knees wearing a turban, looking at Mecca.
Haha lol
Just like the people of Constantinople do now? ;)
@@sebe2255 Yes, unfortunately, but they're Turks anyway
@@miramax6165 Many Turks are descendants of assimilated Anatolian “Greek” converts
Tell me you're 7 without telling me you're 7.
Rome: We Latins want to be Greek!
Byzantium: We Greeks want to be Latins!
fabulous video. We will repost. Thank you !
The Enlightenment and it's consequences...
I would also add that the modern age of popular history on the internet has made great leaps in the popularity of the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire, in particular Robin Pierson's History of Byzantium Podcast followup to the History of Rome Podcast, and the Justinian series by Extra History.
Count me in as someone who first knew about Eastern Roman history through the Extra History series. Not entirely accurate, but the picture they painted of the events and its players were so compelling and exciting that I just kept thinking "why is this not a movie???"
I have always thought that a movie that portrayed the relationship between Constantine XI, Mehmed II and Vlad the Impaler would be a great historical drama. It could paint all three as sympathetic figures so were shaped by history and who shaped history.
I suppose "Dracula Untold" made some small attempt at this.
A failed attempt but an attempt.
Today they woyld use black actors.
I'm a Roman-Byzantine fan from Russia and I can share with you my experience on that topic.
Like many other countries (e.g. Italy, the Vatican City, Greece etc) Russia claims to be a rightful successor to Rome. We even have an aphorism "Moscow is the third Rome" which was developed centuries ago. Since this phrase is quite popular in our country, most of us know that there were previously "two Romes": the Western and the Eastern. So, I guess we can claim that in Russia Byzantium wasn't forgotten like in the West. Unfortunately, both Roman Empires were neglected during the Soviet era, which is obvious, but in the last 25 years there was a dramatic increase in the interest of Byzantine researches. Now there are many Russian scientists whose professional field is Roman history after Theodosius. Since February 2022, history is by any means used as a weapon of propaganda, but I hope that it will end as soon as possible and history will again be the science that unites people and not the one that makes them destroy each other
I would love to write a long comment about how great this video was, covering historical analysis in several engaing ways, on nunerous levels, and using a unique angle to do so.
But i do not have the words to do it justice.
Let me just say: you have found a new subscriber here.
Flameo my good Hotman. Flameo.
There are very interesting philosophy of history videos on Constantinople by Schwerpunkt that I strongly recommend about the issue. I'd love to see a coop and/or criticism of that channel
That guy can't make a video without an unrelated 20 minute introduction, a sentence without three parantheses or a video without bashing socialism and nationalism.
@@genovayork2468Is that what he said? Because honestly i could not understand what he's talking about and all of what he said just flew from my mind.
A shame because he look like he cover many niche history.
He doesnt even consider Eastern Romans real Romans.
@@LucasTheGreat. They aren't real Romans. They are copy cat. That's one of his good takes.
@@genovayork2468 You support voltaire, ur gay
This is seriously great content. Thank you!
Very good video. I'd agree with your view on Gibbon's work - got a c. 150 yr old edition- but I can only claim to have read the first two books! Years ago during my undergrad (Philosophy, Politics & Economics) I was friends with a postgrad student studying Byzantine Studies - I was sorely tempted to stay on and read that, but I met my future wife and got a job! I still remain fascinated by Byzantine and Carthagian history. I believe the MStud in Byztanine Studies is still going strong - I'd be tempted in my retirement to head back to College, but maybe that's only pipedream! Many thanks for the video.
Me and Mozart there dabbing on Voltaire's grave.
Voltaircels are still crying to this day, Hilarious!
Great video!
On the field of academic research on Byzantine topics, I recommend Judith Herrin's Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire. It provides a great insight on actual Byzantine culture and it's not only focused on dynastic history (which can get pretty boring sometimes), but it's especially focused on matters of how life was at the Empire, including religion, art, politics, etc. It also doesn't follow a chronological narrative, but is divided into many different topics.
Nobody gets excited for talking about historical trends or fashion but Constantinople is responsible for painting a huge swath of eastern Europe into similar cultures, most notably Russia.
The more sexy stuff is to just talk about warfare and conquest and aside from a few attempts at reuniting east and west, it can get boring talking about 'and then they built another wall outside of the last wall and gave Atilla a giant wagon full of gold to fuck off'.
You gotta conquer Parthia or do something grand if you want to be remembered like the Western half was. Ain't nobody gonna sing your praises for how you popularized new forms of unified script lol. That ain't why anyone talks about Charlemagne :)
@@Stand_By_For_Mind_Control The western half just lost territory for its 81 years of continuous existence.
Byzantium had no leverage whatsoever in Eastern Europe. Rus' was in Central Europe mostly.
@@Samuil-iq6eb Are you even 10 years old yet? Because I'd had to call a small child a retard.
Your thumbnail is epic! Great video too!
This was ridiculously educational, thanks
That thumbnail is amazing
Voltaire was wrong about the Roman Empire in the east and wrong about the Heliges Römiches Reich. This guy is batting 0-2 right now.
There really doesn't seem to be much he was right about.
All the weirdness of his takes actually made more sense when he noted that history in that era was seen more as a branch of literature and not its own field of study. For philosophers, it was more just a game to study and to show off what they know, basically what we'd call a bunch of "hot takes" today. It's probably why history is in this weird state it's in now where it's too speculative and inexact to be a STEM subject, while also (mostly) still trying to aim for accuracy and objectivity unlike most of the other humanities.
I blame him along with Gibbon for poisoning the general discourse about the Roman Empire and its western and eastern successors.
This is great, and much needed. I wonder how it related to Todorova’s balkanisation thesis?
Saying the byzantine empire was not rome is like saying 2023 america is not 1776 america. Different from its roots but the same all the same.
in case of usa there is direct continuyeaion of state on core lands it was on.Roman emprie of east didnt had Rome itself and saw leven term latin (langage of rome) as pejorative in later age due to rivality with west.Better example woudl be if hipotethc u usa was based in mexico and with langauge and cutlrue mostly spanishmexiacan while claiming to be USA.
I'm an amateur historian but I find the East Roman Empire quite interesting even though I've never gave it the time that I feel I should. When it came time to choose my personality, from a historical interest, I decided to pick the Mongols instead of something more popular like Western Rome, British or Germany. I know there are a couple of deep dives into the East but like I said I chose the Steppe People instead of something normal.
I would love to see a Ridley Scott type movie about belisarius/Justinian.
would make an epic streaming series
Hoo boooy... this aged well 😅
Thank you for making this video. I took a Byzantine history class at the University of Washington in the early 1970s from Professor Imre Boba. I enjoyed it very much but never learned until now why the subject was relegated to the shadows.
Great video, thank you
HELLOOOO OMG ZOOMER HISTORIAN OMG I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS
10:50 On the contrary, Lecky's description of Byzantium makes me want to learn more not less. It sounds fucking awesome.
Wow, more reasons to hate Voltaire, as if that dog needed more reasons.
Exactly
Also more reasons to hate liberals
So called "enlightenment", more like the age of materialism and godlessness.
I had to read some of his works for university, and he goes through all kinds of fields like an anime character going through his character arcs: you have Voltaire the historian, Voltaire the sociologist, Voltaire the anthropologist, Voltaire the economist, and of course there is Voltaire the philosopher.
He is basically a redditor before reddit.
These guys in the comments seething over Voltaire need a mirror, they are the exact thing they declare to hate: redditors.
@@genovayork2468 they arent wrong though
I won't lie, I know more about SPQR than Byz. However, because im Russian i still know a good chunk of Byz history and i quite like Byz overall. Russian Empire sometimes called itself "The Third Rome" (To be more precisely it claimed "Moscow - Third Rome") and Tsargrad (Constantinople) played important role in our history. We adopted orthodox christianity long before all the principalities were consolidated into Russia and also our language gained its first alphabet literally because of the Byz emperor's order. Later things changed and now of course language is quite different but its still quite far from latin and quite close to greek (compared to english, german ans spanish). Also because Russian Empire was connected to some Balkan countries (mainly Serbia) and fought Ottoman Empire multiple times we cant just skip Byz history and we learn it in schools reasonably close. Its impossible to understand what's going on without knowing it. However because main focus is set on the modern era+ its hard to remember everything in details while SPQR gets much more attention in global culture, as you said and therefore we still know more about SPQR than about Byz. But in our fiction books and movies about years 800-1200 you can quite often meet stories about Constantinople. Characters can literally walk its streets or fight some Byz troops (yes, Byz often is kinda antagonistic but in the same time viewed as something congenial).
ye like the whole "third rome" narrative which is very relevent for a good chunk of russian history kinda makes it obligatory to talk about what the second rome was
@@benismannI mean saying that Byzantium was a “second” rome kind of implies they weren’t an actual Rome to begin with. Especially if you put it in line with the Russian third Rome claim. Because out of all the states that claimed to be Roman, that one has to be the most ridiculous
@@sebe2255 still better than first hearing about byzantium in aoe2 like some ppl in the comments claim...
@@benismann I don’t think it really matters where you first hear about it. Why would you be a twat about that lmao. And the OP here literally even says Russian history then just skips Byzantium and focuses more on Rome anyway.
@@sebe2255
Ottoman emprie claimed to be Roman.Sultan hd Caesar of romans in title.
Timurids called ottoman emperors romans..
Great overview. Thanks
After greek tv discovered that all you need to do to make a period piece is to shoot your scenes in already existing castles and olive yards, it started to again in the past few years, maybe someone does it
all I can say is that someone here is definitely doing their part to make this popularity grow.
I really hope that I will see at least one Hollywood production, or one with an adequate budget. Even if there are historical inaccuracies, as long as the vibe is felt
There are already a small number of movies set in the ERE.
Theodora the Slave Empress (1954)
The Last Roman (1968)
Agora (2009)
Gotta warn you about the last one. Nice esthetics but full of the typical hollywood anti-Christian propaganda.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard Thank you very much. I had already watched "Agora", but I was aware of this bias, which did not reflect the political complexity of that period, circumstances, as well as the political role and importance of Hypati, making her merely an independent thinker and martyr.
I also heard about a film about Teodor, I saw somes scenes from it. I guess it's high time to watch it. Likewise with "The Last Roman". It's about Flavius Aetius, isn't it?
@@Michael_the_DrunkardThe anti-Christian part is one of the reasons why i dont watch historical movies often.
Its better to just read and learn about history instead of watching a most likely biased and historically inaccurate movie.
I love this "History of the trends in the Study of History" style format!
As empires rise or reach their peak, it is not uncommon for them to view fallen empires with a sense of superiority. However, we must remember that every empire, no matter how successful, is susceptible to decline and eventual collapse. By recognizing this, we can approach the past with humility and a greater understanding of the complexities of history.
Something similar is with the Early Middle Ages(476-1066), Most shows,movies and games set in the Early Middle Ages are about vikings,Anglo-Saxon England or King Arthur. Barely anything else(Franks,Bulgarians,Byzantines).
Gibbons must of been tipping his fedora or 1700s equivalent really hard.
It was not until the latter half of the sixth decade of my life that I began to read (and see video clips) exploring the early division of the Roman Empire, the East-West schism, and the historical implications of the division. Until then, my education - from elementary school through high school and even college - had treated this history as primarily the history of Western Europe, largely ignoring the Eastern Empire. Thank you for your contribution to enlightening the general public about this side of the world's history!
The reasons behind the historical neglect of the Byzantine Empire, despite its direct continuation from Rome. It highlights how Enlightenment thinkers like Gibbon perpetuated negative stereotypes, while passionate researchers like Finlay fought to restore its image. While academic interest has recovered, mainstream perception lags behind. Social media and accessible content offer hope for the future popularity of Byzantine history.
I remembered reading that at one point the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire were nearly reunited by marriage. I think if that had happened every European would know the history of the Byzantine Empire, because the Roman Empire would probably still stand today.
Maybe, Rome took on the world as much as the entire world took on Rome
I don't know about that. The Carolingian Empire was always shaky political structure, and even if there was a marriage the geopolitical goals of each empire, even if united by marriage would take priority over the will of the sovereigns.
Irene of Athens took the byzantine empire from her children, and Charlemagne was strictly appointed by the pope with little expectation of inheritance. A marriage was proposed to resolve the problem of there being two empires, however this would mainly have been symbolic, with irene and Charlemagne extremely unlikely to have a child, let alone ensure both empires would remain united and allow a joint inheritance
The Eastern Roman Empire and the (Western) Roman Empire. The HRE comes after Charlemagne and his Empire. He was just crowed Roman Emperor. And his Empire went defunct before the establishment of the title that would eventually become the HRE, which was founded by Otto the Great
Heres an interesting video idea: how did the Roman identity evolve into a 'Greek' identity by 1821?
It literally never did. us “””Greeks””” dont even call ourselves greek. we are Ellinas
Stumbled this little gem. Thanks.
This video is very well made!
I find Byzantine history fascinating but I must note that -
One, Western Europe is the direct cultural continuation of the Western Roman Empire. The languages spoken are still mainly derived from Latin or from the Teutonic languages of peoples who interacted heavily with the Western Roman Empire. The dominant religion is still Roman Catholicism or Protestantism, and Protestantism emerged from Roman Catholicism. Most of the major cities of the Western Roman Empire are still extant and in fact tend to be important places.
Two, William E. H. Lecky may have been obnoxious in his quote, but he wasn't entirely wrong. Even more than most other empires, Byzantine imperial history is indeed a history full of fratricide, treachery, blindings, rulers combining fanatic authoritarian promotion of precise religious dogma while personally violating the most basic principles of that religion, and so on. It's not as if any other history is all that different, but the Byzantine emperors and empresses seem to have taken it to a level that's just a bit more extreme.
Its really not surprising, byzantium was largely just a rump state in constant decline until its inevitable end
Great work
I first learned of late antiquity - medieval (Eastern) Rome from the Total War games when i was in highschool, and i got hooked on them ever since. Vads for the win!
It's not just the Byzantines, from the renaissance and through the enlightenment to modern day Medieval history in general is sorely neglected by biased worldviews. Medieval history, east or west, is just as entertaining, interesting, and engaging as classical history.
@@djohnson2536 none of that is remotely true
Entertaining, interesting, and engaging, yes... but the western medieval history is an history of decadence and regression compared to the period in which the Roman Empire ruled the West with a subsistence economy with no trade, no political organization of the state but a feudal particularism, no streets and aqueducts, no cities...
I wouldn't say neglected by used in the west for political propaganda. Most of the 'Fall of Rome' nonsense is just Anglo propaganda.
Because they were Orthodox and west doesn't like that.
Byzantine is very popular in Greece, Serbia, Russia and other Orthodox countries.
I doubt if the average Russian knows that much about Byzantium. Their historical knowledge is based on vague Soviet-era anecdotes derived from Bolshevik propaganda. I would guess 30% know about it somewhat (Probably Christians) and even fewer know it extensively.
Really, Gibbon was writing about the British Empire and used the Roman Empire as a theme to channel his civilizational anxiety. He was not too different from the painters of his era who used Greek and Roman themes to justify nudity.
I mean Americans used to consider south Italians and Greeks not white in the 1920s and 30s lol, I am not surprised western European they used to think like this toward the Byzantines but to say "A thousand years of decline” is really insane even though they survived empires like the Mongols.