The First Arab Siege of Constantinople: Part 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- This video examines the traditional account of the First Arab Siege of Constantinople and how it has, in fact been misdated to the 670's AD.
Chapters:
00:00 The Prelude
02:45 The First Arab Siege of Constantinople c.672-678
05:18 The Historiography
06:12 How Theophanes Created his Account
14:04 Theophanes' Error!
15:42 Theophilos' Account of the War
18:20 An Arab Siege of Constantinople in AD667-669?
Bibliography:
Primary Sources
Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, Series secunda, edited by R. Riedinger, (1984-present).
Agapius, Khitab al-Unvan, edited by A. A. Vasiliev, (1912).
Chronicle of AD1234, edited by J. B. Chabot, (1916-1920).
Michael the Syrian, Chronicle, J. B. Chabot, (1899-1910)
Nikephoros, Short History, Translated by Cyril Mango (1990).
Theophanes the Confessor, Chronicle AD284 - 813, translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott (1997).
Theophilus of Edessa, Chronicle - and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, Translation by R. G. Hoyland (2011).
Scholarship
Haldon, J. (2008) The Byzantine Wars, Gloucestershire.
Jankowiak, J. 'The First Arab Siege of Constantinople' in Constructing the Seventh Century (2013), 237-322.
Jenkins, R. J. H. (1966) Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries AD610-1071, MART reprint, Toronto.
Treadgold, W. (1997) A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford.
Email
easternromanhistory@gmail.com
Discord
/ discord
If you would like to support Eastern Roman History, I have a Patreon:
/ easternromanhistory
Music Credits:
'You Mean Nothing' by Bastian Kieslinger from SpellForce 3 by Grimlore Games.
'Rome Total War' and 'Imperial Conflict' by Jeff van Dyke from Rome Total War by the Creative Assembly.
All images used are for educational purposes, if I have used a piece of art and you would like me to credit you, please contact me and I shall do so.
Part 2: czcams.com/video/kVNg16rvm6U/video.html
· No AI pictures
· No AI voice
· Source criticism
---> Liked, subscribed
AI pictures?
@@histguy101those incredibly low effort yt shorts that uses heavily inaccurate depictions of historical figures
Those AI pictures have become tiresome. Eventually this fad will fade away and they will revert back to how it used to be.
Is AI pictures a no go for you? Even a very small subtle and transparent use of it?
Centuries before, when the Goths besieged the City in 378, it was Arab warriors (before the advent of Islam) who ventured out of the walls and put the Goths to flight with their killing frenzy; one of the Arab warriors made quite an impression by fighting naked and by quenching his thirst with the blood of Goth warriors he had, himself, decapitated.
Yeah that was after Adrianople
"So uncivilised" ~ Obi Wan
Muslim Arabs and Berbers later decimated the Goths and North Africa and crushed the Goths in much of Hispania.
This totally happened...
For this topic I recommend everyone read
“The Empire that would not die, the Paradox of Eastern Roman Survival 640-740” by John Haldon.
It covers this siege and is dedicated to analyzing how Byzantium survived all the events that happened to it during this period even accounting for things such as change in climate and its affect on Byzantine agriculture.
The setbacks of the 7th and 8th centuries were truly as devastating as the 3rd and 5th centuries, but just like the Romans of antiquity, the Romans of the early middle ages relied on key individuals to guide them through the darkest of times.
Nice Rome Total War music insertion ❤
have you ever considered making a video about the decline/collapse of the theme system/tagmata in the 11th century ive heard general hints about it but nothing that goes into any detail as much as you do
Great content and history telling love this channel guys
Thank you very much.
Altough i LOVE byzantine history, i find the fight for survival period(640-717) one of their most interesting periods and i love how they still managed to hold on more than a million square km
One of the best reasoned historical videos I have seen on CZcams in a very long time. Better still, no AI voice, but a real narrator. Excellent effort,. Thank you.
Wow, this video blew my mind! Never knew about this epic clash between empires. That Greek fire defense sounds insane!
Thank you very much. Greek fire was particularly scary because it continued to burn on water. While not invincible it could be used to deadly effect and could often break the morale of an attacker. For example the tenth century Viking attack on Constantinople of beaten by 20 fire ships commanded by the eunuch Theophanes.
@@EasternRomanHistory We still do not know exactly the composition of the material used to create the Greek fire
l knew there was a debate about whether the siege of constantinople by the arabs in 667-669 was factual or not but l didnt know the nuances of it.Great video
A lot of this become clearer in the next video but I will talk about that.
Always wondered had the Sassanid-Byzantine war of the early 600s hadn’t occurred would the Arab conquest been as successful as it was. A fascinating time period in my opinion.
Great content !👍👍
I enjoyed the video! Keep it up!
Comment for the algorithm great video
Always enjoy your videos, good job!
Excellent work 👌👌👌
Great vid
First time I have ever come across the idea that the siege didn’t happen at this time. Looking forward to the next video.
It has previously be argued by some that it never happened at all, but it seems a bit much to just invent a siege of Constantinople and this theory rested on the strength of the corroborating Eastern evidence without consultation of the western material. Again that was an issue on not using all of the available sources.
I wish you well-being from Asia Minor, the center of Eastern Roman. I follow your videos with interest. Today's Turks carry an average of 50% Eastern Roman blood. In some regions, this rate rises to 60-65%.
Bunu turklarin soulerken turklarin inkar ediyour
Mongolian 😂😂😂
@@kingskele4128 Trollian 🥳
Thanks for this man. Every thought making a coop with Schwerpunkt? Your channels have a huge potential
Still waiting a documentary on Byzantine spain from 552 ad to 624 ad
Or north Africa Byzantine from 533 ad to 709 ad
14:20 Total War Rome yeaah babyyyy
Have you already done or could you maybe (if its worthwhile and if there is enough information or as such) do a video about the relations between the city of rome and the byzantine empire? I mean there was the Duchy of Rome, Constans II visited rome and thought about making it the capital once again, but still they lost hold of it sometime and the papacy took over.
That is a very good idea, A history of Byzantine Rome. It is certainly something I would be interested in doing.
long live the algorithm
After watching this video, I cannot helped but wondering about this. Do you think that the sources of the First Siege of Constantinople by the Arabs are being contradicting and confusing on purpose? Do you think the propaganda to glorify the Arabs' second attempt during the reign of Emperor Leo III played a part in this? After all, peoples often talked a lot about the Second Siege of Constantinople by the Arabs with great utmost importance because such a success has the potential to change the history of the world both before and even after what happened in 1453.
As we shall see in the next video the Arab sources from the Umayyad age did get a bit of rewriting by the historians of the Abbasid age but that was focused more on rubbishing the Umayyads. The good thing is we are not reliant on the Arab sources for corroberating evidence as we shall see in the next video.
To appraise the importance of the two, the second does seem to have been more important than the first in terms of scale and we have more information about the second. The first was still significant, possibly being the tipping point for the assassination of Constans II and the highwater mark of Arab successes against the Romans. Unscrambling the order of events shows that it was the war conducted by Constantine IV during the 670's was very important for stabilising the frontier. What might have happened had the greater than 30000 strong army and navy Arab army completed their task?
@@EasternRomanHistory Do you think that if Constans II did not die, will he eventually make things better for the Empire a lot sooner, the first attempt to take Constantinople by the Arabs will never happened and the Twenty Years' Anarchy could have been avoided?
Also, I heard that the Senate took control of his reign during the early days of the regency. So what stopped those Senators from seizing power and turning it back into the proper Republic once again? After all, didn't they always wanted to do that ever since the days of Octavian proclaimed himself the Augustus?
Speaking of information from the Arab sources, do you think which sources is more believable when it comes to Emperor Michael III? The Roman authors, most likely under the payrolls of Basil I, wrote negatively about him while the Arab sources written positively about him. So we have two sources originated from the enemies of both Michael III but one written about him negatively while the other one written about him positively. So between the Roman and Arab sources, which one is more trustworthy in your view?
@@EasternRomanHistory the first siege was far more dangerous they didn't have greek fire yet and Anatolia raid was so bad infact they almost got it if they didn't abounded it because of lack of supply the second siege was ez victory for leo 3rd since he know he can win on water all he had to do is open Anatolia for them without destroying the fort and ally with Bulgaria and keep foolling maslama
In Sufyan you should pronounce the a long: Suf-yán.
Man, people really jumped to conclusions back in the day. See an eclipse, or bad thunderstorm, or snow, or even a rainbow(!) and everyone's all "The world is about to end!!!"
Why the Author never even mention who played the decisive role for repelling the assault and lifting that siege, the Bulgarian horsemen of Khan Tervel!!!??
That would be because Tervel assisted in the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople and this is talking about the First Arab Siege of Constantinople, which occurred fifty years before.
No Arab sources? or did they follow the old tradition of not recording losses.
But there are Arab sources as we shall see in the next video.
18:40 ～ 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
That's New Rome the City of Constantine.
When animals besiege a civilized city.
some salty bum still crying........
Barbarian Invasion music!
Fascinating that there is no mention of Islam rather Ssracen and with godless seeming to be non Trinitarian.
*Hagarene* was another insulting term Byzantine chroniclers were fond of, as you can see from the quotes.
@@alanpennie8013 I have no doubt that the 2 civilizations insulted each other but there is also the issue of whether one side regarded themselves as being Islamic at the time or rather more defined themselves by what they were against....so Trinitarian Byzantines against one god with no associates (as in holy spirit and the son Jesus).
Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things: prophet Muhammad said Verily, you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful army will that army be, and what a wonderful commander will that conqueror be.”
Yes, Muhammad spoke very highly of crusaders sacking Constantinople.
Thats a made up hadid by Umayyads
Leo knew that he had to lure it the arab on sea because the arab at time nearly toke amoria had the arab toke Anatolia the Byzantine would have lost for good just like turk did
To me Byzantine in 730 was better then 1180 why it cuz of Anatolia was far more important then bullkans and Italy had Manuel realise this early who knew if had retaking Anatolia he could have delayed Byzantine fall for many years
It’ll be worth learning to pronounce “th”.