4: Byzantium: the Dark Ages
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 08. 2024
- In this episode, we discuss the Dark Age of Byzantium from the death of Heraclius to the end of Iconoclasm: The foundations of Slavic civilisation, the Slavic and Bulgar invasions of Byzantium, the Arab sieges of Constantinople, Justinian II, the Twenty Years Anarchy and the two Iconoclastic Periods, culminating in the reign of Michael III and the conversion of the Bulgarians to Orthodox Christianity.
With:
Columba: / columba_1
Marcus Pertinax: / furiuspertinax
Romans had such cool words for things. Imperator, strategos, exarchate
Wonderful as ever, thank you gentlemen - great to have Columba back.
Grade A as always. Expecting Marcus to turn into a Byzantine cooking channel with that last book reading.
Very condensed and interesting stream, good job!
I appreciate how you cleared up that matter with the muslims and ancient works. It's also important to acknowledge that muslims didn't altruistically preserve ancient works and then just gave it all to the unenlightened europeans out of the goodness of their hearts. But rather preserved what was useful to them and whatever came to Europe from them was simply because of cultural exchange.
The Muslim safekeeping of ancient works for the sake of it is quite well debunked by simply quoting Caliph Omar which roughly went somewhere along the lines of...
"If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."
Return of the full dream team!
This series of yours is absolutely amazing. Thank you gentlemen for making it.
Also, Greek Fire sounds like White Phosphorous.
I cannot begin to describe to you how thankful I am for these lectures. Thank you kindly. God bless you!
Both the evidence and modern scholarship suggest that Basil I was most probably of a mixed Armenian (father) and Greek (mother) ancestry, while there is no actual evidence that he spoke any Slavic or even Armenian at all. Gibbon's assumptions of him having Slavic ancestry are baseless and outdated.
From Mavrikios onwards all emperors were either Greek, either half-Greek or at the least totally Hellenized, otherwise they simply wouldn't be accepted as the rulers. By the end of late antiquity, in order to be accepted as a "Basileus Romaion" one had to 1) speak fluent Greek, 2) have Greco-roman cultural values and 3) be a Chalcedonian Christian. These three components together, made someone a true "Romaios".
Exactly.
Thank you Gents covering this underestood and underestimated part of history
You guys are the best, never stop and ill always love
On the theme system. My understanding of it always was that it didn't immediately eliminate the remaining provincial administration operating in Anatolia. But it was a strictly military system initially, which over time assumed administrative purposes as well.
I also recall it was mostly done from the old field armies. Hence the army of Armenia gets settled in a bunch of provinces and becomes the theme of Armeniakon, the army of Thrace in the Thracian theme (now in Anatolia!) etc.
The monetary crisis of the 7th.c and the subsequent need to supply soldiers off the land and with goods/land instead of cash probably has something to do with it.
TOP NOTCH! As always, gentlemen. Thank you & cheers.
Only recently came across you. You do good work and the collaboration on this series is a great combo of personalities, knowledge and views.
One thing that hampered Slavs, but at other times was their strength, is their fragmented nature. It made them easier to conquer, but on the other hand it made it almost impossible to bribe them of as there wasn't one overlord ruling them.
One Arab scholar travelled into Slavic lands and he commented that if Slavs were to unite that they would conquer the world...but that it would never happen. He mentioned that he heard that some Avar lord proclaimed himself king of all Slavs and that he mentioned that to some Slavs and each time they would burst out in laughter "It is more likely that sky will fall than someone uniting all the Slavs".
Also as a Serb I have to notice no Bosnians or Montenegrin tribes coming to Balkans on any maps. Strange, aint it.
Leo III "the Isaurian" adopted the name "Leon" only when he became the Basileus. His real name was the typical Greek name Conon, which suggests that he was a Greek or Greco-Syrian from the Roman-built town of Germanikeia (which was inhabited mainly by Greek Romaioi and not by native Aramaic speaking populations) and not an Isaurian. The actual Isaurians had a bad name and reputation and were considered semi-barbarians, since they weren't totally hellenised until much later. This "nick" was attributed to him by Iconophiles such as Theophanes the Confessor long after his reign, simply in order to downgrade and belittle him for being the first Iconoclast emperor.
in my head he is an isaurian and totally deserve the name "Conon the Barbarian"
@@majorianus8055 In your head he might be whatever you wish him to be pal, but the fact remains that there is no contemporary source referring to him as Isaurian. The first such reference was made over a hundred years after his reign.
@@majorianus8055 The emperor Zeno who reigned during he 5th century was in fact an actual Isaurian. He is the one who trully deserves the epithet "barbarian", as there is evidence that during his reign he was considered a barbarian Isaurian by most.
Been really looking forward to this one, such an interesting period
You're probably aware of the dispute, but I would contend with the Dacian origins of the Romanians. It seems apparent to me that a large part of the Vlachs migrated away from the Slav settled regions of Latin speaking Eastern Rome into the Danubian delta region alongside the rise of various Vlach rulers under the Bulgars, Hungarians and various other ruling peoples as they took over the region. I'm especially certain of this in Moldavia, where the principality there was only founded in the high medieval period with Hungarian backing, and had previously never been a part of a Roman administration, and had ties to the Russian sphere that later justified Russian annexation of Bessarabia.
The Dacian continuity claim is particularly bizarre in a region that was never referenced as Romanised until well after any Roman administration was gone and was only under such administration for a time shorter than the continuously native speaking Britons. The also fairly obvious relation to the 'Aromanian' peoples all over the Balkan region indicate a general origin of the Eastern dwelling Latins based in Illyria, Pannonian, Moesia, Macedonia, Thracia etc. The idea that Dacians would be Latinised and remain static in that territory for almost two thousand years in the middle of a region known for its dynamic constantly changing ethnic landscape is kinda absurd lol. It's a controversial issue because of its conflicting claims with Hungarian and other ethnogenisis used to justify territorial annexations and the legitimacy of nation states.
No serious historian takes the Daco-Romanian continuity seriously anymore. sk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BAbor:Ethnic_map_of_11th_century.jpg
Slované from 'slovo' (word). Hence the people of the word. As opposed to the Germans (Němci) or the 'Mutes'. Is the possibility I quite like.
Makes sense.
"Nemtsy" referred to ALL foreigners, not just Germans. It's just that the Germanic peoples were the majority of the foreigners the Slavs were dealing with.
Another great stream gents, cheers.
Very educational, thank you.
at least I can watch this while I wait for dovahhatty to upload the real chad history
Welcome back gentlemen!!👍 Just out of curiosity, what's your view of Rachel Fulton Brown?
The "um" count is in the millions.
Am I the only one who finds the interruptions and talking over each other detracts from the listenability? Perhaps you can work out some way to avoid that. At our company we have this little hand we can raise in our Zoom or Teams meeting to be able to contribute. Or maybe everyone but me likes this style in which case ignore my complaining. I will keep coming back nonetheless because the content is so good.
Regarding the following vid exploring the Thomas Moore era ; one cannot help but ponder wether Henry would have taken advantage of the present day trans business to produce a heir . Thus depriving England of the positive experience of Elizabeth 1 [ if Mary had been overlooked ] , and by extension keeping in with the Catholic set .
Halcyon days and Byzantine nights. Sounds good to me!
Welcome to Golgumbaz, South India 🇮🇳
How much of the Christianisation was due to Theodosius in 391 making it illegal to be pagan and punishable by death? Didn't the Catholic Church only revoke this edict in 1962? Has it been revoked by the Eastern Orthodox churches yet?Also, weren't over 50% of the Bishops believing in Reincarnation when it was made Anathema by the Emperor Justinian?
+ In Syrian and Aramaic texts doesn't Allah just mean God and Muhammed is the title "the most praised one' referring to Jesus ?..as in the Church(?) of the Dome on the Rock? Episodes from his life referred to in the Koran seem to be from sources either in the Gnostic Gospels or other suppressed texts, did a lot of the Muslims just start out as heretical Christians?
All you need to know is that westerns did not eat with cutlery and did not bath.. but enjoyed rounding up people into feudal camps.. exactly the reason why the Romans believed they were not barbarians is because they gave us the constitution when the Gothic Germans believed in privatizing even the water... like Today...
What a great channel. Such a shame I just saw you guys!
Isaurian is the Greek form of Syrian. Some people translate Isaurian as Syrian
My understanding qas Leo was actually ethnically Arab