John II Komnenos and the Crusader States with Real Crusades History
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2024
- The topic today is the relationship between the emperor John II Komnenos and the Crusader States as well as his eastern campaigns.
My special guest this time is J. Stephen Roberts from Real Crusades History. You can find his channel here:
/ realcrusadehistory
If there are any questions you would like to ask, leave a comment?
Subscribe and like the video!
Are you Orthodox?
@@roguedisciple5961 No Anglican. How about you?
@@EasternRomanHistory I was raised Episcopalian, but I am planning on converting to Orthodoxy.
@@roguedisciple5961 I am Greek. Why you want to convert?
I should also mention that the French historian of the Crusades(and my favourite over Ranciman) Rene Grousset is very critic of the conduct of the crusaders outside Aleppo while John II was personally participating in the action and directing the fire of the trebushets and the mangonels. He is praising the man as a true soldier-king contrary to his hypocrite allies.
I believe even William of Tyre critisied Joseline II and Raymond of Poitiers for being so supine in their asistance to John II.
John II Komnenos was the one emperor of the dynasty that seems to have better understood the turkish danger. His interaction with the crusaders would have been much different if was not the issue of Antiocheia inbetween their relations. I do believe that that issue could not be overseen by any emperor for many, rather obvious reasons none the least of which was the deal of his father with Godfrey of Bouillon.
Well by rights the city of Antioch should have been handed over to the Romans once the first crusade took it. Alexios I tried and failed to chuck the Normans out of it and I suppose John was just going in for round 2. His ability to comprimise with the crusaders and try and get them an alternative shows that he was not unreasonable but the crusaders were being stubborn.
@@EasternRomanHistory but why ist that important ? Central Anatolia capadocia was far more important had john kicked the truks from Anatolia he could let the western take as buffer zoon once the western gone week then Byzantine could retaking it in 1300s Anatolia is the key to Byzantine survival
Excellent video! Thank you, I am in love with Eastern Roman history and the Komnenian restoration in particular
I am glad you enjoyed it. I have a few other videos about Alexios I and John II you might like.
I have the impression that John did not want to stray frar from the coast or existing territories as supplies are your biggest concern when campaigning. In the hinterland the Turks would be harder to deal with as they can ride off anywhere and have you chasing your tail until supplies run out or you run into an ambush. So supply lines are key to John's campaigns.
Georgina Buckler wrote a great study on Anna Comnene. It covers her character, education, piety, literary skill, and of course her history and it's sources. The first chapter in fact explores her hopes for succession.
An advice from a Greek if I am aloud Sir . it pronounced "Komnene" / Κομνηνοί (first plural ) and Pronea / Πρόνοια. In Greek we have 5 "e" sounds. H, I, Υ, and two dipfthogs ΕΙ and OI. The o (omikron) and i (giota) together its a diphthog sound like e. For examble economy which is a word coming from Greek we wright it οικονομία.
Regarding Myriokefalon now. You said that it was a disaster if i remember well ( i heard the video in the morning during my training) i 've read some articles arguing that it wasn't so much a military disaster as most of the army managed to escape. They even said that the army won some battles against the Turks almost immediatelly after Myriokefalon. The damage was mostly at a diplomatic level (in the status of the empire) and at the amount of the machines Manuel lost. For some reason just like Heraclius after Yarmuk, Manuel felt to depression after Myriokefalon. The defeat cost him in reputation (atleast in his eyes) and he never recovered phychologically. I don't know what its true and whats not. I would like your opinion. Thank you for the great video Sir and for your love to the most scrutinized state of all time. You see the Empire didn't have Franch or Germany to defend it and our politicians and most of the academia don't care about these things as they are "old time, useless and promote nationalism"...We can even Skype if you like. I can explain a lot about Greece's point of view on the Byzantine past, since our independence from Turks.
Hello, thanks for your comment, sorry for the very late reply but this was languishing in the potential spam comments annoyingly. Thanks for the advice, admittedly my Greek is not very good, although it is important to note that the Byzantines often used Attic Greek instead of the venacular. For Myriokephalon, you are right that the battle was not a disaster but it did, as you correctly say brake Manuel's confidence and when he died that was the last serious attempt to retake the heartland of Anatolia. Manuel was getting older by that point in 1176, and as he always had done before, he moved onto other ventures, plus he had to worry about the succession. Hope that makes things clearer.
I don't know very much about Greece's opinion of the Byzantine Empire today but I would like to know more.
Great video, but you made few mistakes. John was able to conquer Cilicia, expand Roman land in Asia Minor, Antioch, Serbia and Edessa become vassals and totally erase Pechenegs from political map. He was one of few emperor's who never lost the beatle. Also Manuel defeat at Microcefaleon was not total disaster. Most of army was back home after treaty with Turks, unfortunately they didn't manage to expell Turks and take Iconium, but beatle was not military disaster disaster.
Anyway great video, continue with excellent work...
Love it
Highly interesting
Thank you very much!
One of the big things in the 11 Century is that the Basileus in Constantinople was only selectively able to assert control over client states if they showed up with the main force contingent of their armies. Something that prior periods of the Roman Empirer was not quite as neceasary as the force sent was powerful but not the main force or necessarily the Emperor in charge. Following ths 7th Century collapse into primarily Anatolia such options became infrequent and the 11 century collapase after 1071 means the state is being rebuilt from scratch internally again. Each stage of collapse of Rome highlights the same internal weaknesses under external pressure. The state was reliant on strong central control with trustworthy officials working for the betterment of that state. It was always at risk of a coup frombself interested officials; capable or otherwise; ultimately depleting the resources of the Empire. A weakness steming from 2nd Century BC republican falling into the 1st Century BC Dictators and then Principate.
If he didnt die there was high chance Antioch to be conquered by the empire
@1:08 you say that creating a new Kingdom rather than replacing the Emperor was foreign to the Romans. But during the 3rd and 4th Centuries there were the areas in Britain and Gaul that did that. There was Zenobia and the Cilecians did it after manzikert in the 11 Century. There was also the Kingdom of Soissons in the 5th Century.
⬇️ *[John III Doukas Vatatzes to the Pope]* ⬇️
".. We have no need of wisdom to understand what your throne is and how it was established. *But how is it that you overlook or do not understand with what wisdom the imperial throne was allotted to OUR RACE by Constantine the Great? Who is unaware that the lot of his succession fell to OUR PEOPLE and that we are his successors and inheritors.* You ask me not to overlook your throne and its privileges, but we too have our claims, as *you should see and recognize, our rights of government and of authority over Constantinople which go back over a thousand years to Constantine the Great. The ancestors of our majesty, of the families of Ducas & Comneni-let me not mention the others-came from the "GREEK" RACE and for many centuries held sway over Constantinople* .."
*-John III Doukas Vatatzes*
[Letter to Pope Gregory IX]