The Fall of the Komnenians | Byzantine History
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 06. 2024
- For ninety-nine years three Komnenian emperors - Alexios, John and Manuel - ruled the Byzantine Empire. They inherited a state on the brink of collapse, but by the time they were done they had built Byzantium back up into the most powerful European empire. Yet fortune is fickle. Shortly after Manuel died, his dynasty would collapse; not long after that, so too did the Empire - decapitated by the Fourth Crusade. How did this happen? Why did things fall apart so fast?
It was - if not the beginning of the end - then at least the beginning of the beginning of the end. Never again would the Byzantines have it so good.
00:00 Cycles of Empire
00:56 The Prelude to Catastrophe
05:37 The Regency
09:12 The Life and Times of Andronikos
13:36 Coups and Massacres
21:31 The Sicilian Menace
30:33 The Tyrant Falls
38:35 The Empire Strikes Back
40:50 The Last Komnenians
Music by Kevin MacLeod, with "Aetas Romana" by Adrian von Zielger.
Hyped. I am sure there is no chance the dynasty to follow the Komnenians will cause anything bad to happen, Roman Empire is BACK baby, it's all roses from here
oh boy.....
Please don't mislabel the empire as Roman. It's really Greek. I don't mean to be rude so thank you.
@@thehaemogoblin7587 The Eastern Roman Empire was as Greek as the Western Roman Empire was modern Italian. 0 in common.
@@thehaemogoblin7587 If you would be so kind please clarify when this became Greek Empire
Lmao 😂 it’s crazy to think about who they traded the Komnenians for
"He was Manuel's cousin"
"He seduced his cousin"
THAT WASN'T WORDED VERY WELL TBH
Did I stutter?
It was a big family there were a lot of cousins. He did not seduce Manuel.
Well, been with a 1000 women and 1 man doesn't make you gay, rather incestuous 😂
@@Serapeum can u do road to 1204 from 1081 to 1204 and how the forth crusade happened and what was the seeds that caused this
Cousins marriage was very common until 20th century.
The empire had crappy rulers for the next 20 years after Manuel's death, but how did they screw up the situation so darn bad? The empire in 1180 was actually quite formidable still, but by the fourth crusade it had so many problems its insane to think that even 20 years earlier it was considered powerful. What went so terribly wrong?
It Manuel fault he build his empire on sands
Have u seen the turks after 1180 start to retake Anatolia ?
Ask ur self what did Manuel accomplish ? Nothing
Calicia & antique : they forgot about the Byzantine as soon as Manuel died
The bullkan : bella retoke it in year
Serbia : rebelled and start to expand
Bulgaria : used the norman invasion to rebelled
Cyprus : lost fast to Richard the lion heart
His campaigns :
Egypt failed two times
Anatolia small raids and won nothing much and in 1176 big failer
South italy : good campaign but failed
His diplomacy : try to make everyone as allies end up with allies
He kicked out Venice in 1171 but they got back later after his death
The fact that the Romans were a great power until 1180 AD in the era of the Crusades is truly mind blowing. From the 2nd century BC until the 12th century AD, they adapted to all circumstances and overcame all adversities and maintained their superpower position from the era of Carthage and the Hellenists to the high Middle Ages. But everything has an end, and the luck of the Romans ran out with the start of the 13th century AD
It's not Romans they are not from Rome and they are not talking Latin and they are not Catholics! They are Greeks they talking Greek and they are orthodoxs offsprings of the ancient Greeks!
There name is Romaioi not Roman's Ρωμαιοι not Romans Ρομανς..
My relatives are Romaioi from Asia minor they are Greeks and they mourn the fall of Constantinople untill today 29 04 1453
Byzantines were Greeks with Roman citizenship. They were politically Romans due to their citizenship and obviously they had nothing to do with the ancient Romans. So why are you talking about medieval Greeks and ancient Romans as if they were the same people?
Politically, they were Romans, and this is the aspect that I am talking about. I am talking about the Romans as a state and not as a people. The Roman state continued as a strong state until the end of the twelfth century AD
Then we don't disagree. But you said "from the 2nd century BC until the 12th century AD adapted to all circumstances" as if you were taking about the same people
@@gilpaubelid3780 yeah the roman state adapted to all circumstances , the roman republic was a roman state just like the roman empire and the byzantine empire
For me, it seems like the wealth/food/population provided by Egypt, the Levant, and Africa were a main reason why the empire, until the late 7th century, could pretty successfully and simultaneously resist the pressures from their neighbors in Europe and in the east. With the loss of those immense resources, the empire really needed quite skilled emperors, one after the other, to make the situation work.
On the one hand, Constantinople was located in such a strategically advantageous position that the empire could hobble along for a long time, but especially from the 8th century onward, that same geography mean it was often caught between the hammer of the various Caliphates/eventually the Seljuks and the anvil of various antagonistic European states/peoples.
We only really see the Byzantines as a global power in those intermittent periods when (with the Macedonians and then, finally, Alexios/John/Manuel) they managed to get a stable cohort of successive effective emperors. And it's really dramatic, though pretty unsurprising given the geography and circumstances above, how quickly that power unraveled with just a few incompetents thrown into the mix.
Man, Andronikos's life is movie/series just *begging* to happen.
I have discovered this gold mine of Eastern Roman history 😍 this channel is awesome
Welcome aboard!
Wow this is a great video, I've been looking for a solid Byzantine history channel and just came across yours. You have a great narrator voice and the clear and simple maps & ruler pictures really engage the viewer without being overly complicated. And the way you described Andronikos and his faults & personality traits really gives you a solid understanding of the man. Would definitely watch videos like this about other Byzantine rulers. Great work! 👏
I found your videos recently, and am so happy I did. Beautifully put together, lucrative with information on one of my favorite eras of history and your voice is fantastic with the narration. I hope there are more videos in the works and if you’re still active would love to see a reply, I’d like to help you continue to make videos like this and want to know if there’s any more I can do aside from being a member.
Great video, got massive ck2 vibes from this
Comment for the algorithm god. I love that people make videos like this now. I've always loved the history of the ERE and there was a time, a few years ago, when it just didn't exist, or it barely existed, or it was poor quality. Good video.
Such a cunning, shrewd man, but so self absorbed with his own vices! Committed every mortal sin possible from incest to spilling the blood of his kin and possibly pedophilia. If only had he invested a tenth of his potential for the interest of the empire. His ending with his pre-mortal lament and his gruesome ending, a Greek tragedy without redemption. As was the fate of the empire's prologue and bitter decline after his reign
Excellent work here Sir
this is by far one of if not your best video, clear a lot of hard work went into it so really good job mate. Bonus points as it gave me something to listen to whilst at the gym.
I have been studying this period of byzantine history recently. Your video was great, from narration to historical accuracy. You are one of my favoritte youtubers.
Please make more of these. This was great.
Wow, great video as always! Love the longer format!
Great video. Your videos are really high quality
Amazing video! Took me a while to finish watching, but I definitely feel like I learned so much, and most importantly I feel like I will remember what I learned
Your speech is so pleasing as are the words you've chosen to narrate! Love the video!
Beautiful work well done
Your content is unique. Please go on. I would be really surprised if your channel doesn’t grow fast. Thank you!
Beautiful video
Fantastic video, much appreciated thank you so much for this content
Beautifully narrated and made video
The Angeloi emperors (Isaac & Alexios) were direct descendants of Alexios I Komnenos. They were just as much part of the family as the other Komnenoi emperors. I would also add that they were well-meaning emperors who tried their best to clean up the mess that Andronikos left behind. People are too harsh on the Angeloi. I cant blame them for not being successful.
I Agree with Isaac who is imo a 6.5-7/10 Emperor and definitely underrated but not Alexios III who flatout killed the empire and is to blame for 1204 being a defeat.
Yeah, I second your rating of Isaac. Maybe 5.5/10 in my book, but he's an angel (an Angelos, you could say, hohohohohoho) compared to his brother and son.
@@tylerellis9097 I would rate Alexios III and IV as -100/10 and below Phocas
Alexios III fled the calital and allied himself with the sultanate of rum through whom he tried to retake the throne and in the process probably concede even more land and privileges to them, Isaac II on the other hand had good intentions but wasn't that good.
Excellent content!
Great video.
Just wondering, do you plan on covering the reign of Emperor Manuel I at some point?
I agree with this. ^ More on Manuel I!
Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things..
Great video Serapeum! I do hope you soon make a continuation into Constantine VIIs reign after the regency (maybe even a cameo appearance with the pale death himself and Tzimiskes).
A great vid. Better than anything on the history Chanel . Any thoughts of going on nebula?
This video just got you subscriber, great Job!! 💪💪💪🥰
Fantastic video bruv
great video
Great video
Super well done
Great viddo
Hey Serapeum, big fan of your content. Is it possible for you to list your sources used for this video as i would like to learn about this topic further
Thanks!
why was the military so reliant on having a great emperor? why were the ottomans successful at having a strong military regardless of how good or bad the sultan was?
exquisite video. truly my favorite dynasty from the whole roman period. adaptability, competence and sheer Fing will. that's what it took to be a roman emperor.
P.S. in 992 or in 1092 were the venetians given trade privileges in exchange for naval support? i think Basil II had no need for venetian fleet, rather Alexios I.
The Deal between Basil and Venice just lowered taxes on their trade in Constantinople in exchange for Venice transporting Byzantine troops and help patrol Byzantine Italy which they did, noticeably lifting an Arab siege on Bari.
The entire social, state, ideological, religious and military structure of the ottomans was interlinked. The byzantines had major issues with loyalty, instability and finances. The ottoman state structure was a lot better simply in that random generals couldn't overthrow the sultan, only one dynasty was legitimate. A lot of the troops the ottomans used were paid in loot, thus they could retain perpetual warfare much more readily, they conscripted single men and thus were better able to absorb casualties, they had a feudal system able to raise large bodies of horsemen and very were culturally and religiously aggressive. The byzantines often tried to play games of strategy, they would allow their lands to be raided and then catch the enemy with their pants down, this however did not heal the destruction, ultimately the Norman approach of getting on a horse and just directly trying to kill anyone who sniffed in your general direction was a lot better for the security and prosperity of the common population (the basis of any tax system). The Romans were too clever for their own good, they took hollow victories over grinding attrition and were often left the worse for it, that said it was truly impressive how resilient and able to bounce back they were.
Ultimately most ottoman military energy was spent on massive costly seiges and endless wars with Persia, most of the byzantines went on civil wars, it does show something that the defencability of Constantinople was such a lesser consideration to the turks.
awesome history
I consider the Empire of Trebizond as the true last Romans. It fell in 1461 8 years after the Fall of Constantinople.
Trebizond was a Georgian puppet at first
Theodoro fell in 1475 some consider that to be the last of the Romans
hello are you planning on doing a video about Basil II?
He did a video about from 1025 to 1099 ad
Longer format was pretty sick
Thanks - I decided to take a gamble by making it longer, and it seems to be paying off
Excellent video! I, for one, love it. I saw another comment asking for a review of the life/reign of Manuel Komnenos, and I'd like to add a +1 for that.
I feel like he gets a bad rap for being so pro-Latin, but I can't help but feel it's overblown. Eastern Roman History did a good video on hom, but more is almost always better.
Manuel Komnenos was a good emperor, perhaps even a great one. His biggest fault was not his fascination with the west, but rather his short attention span and his ambition: his reign saw invasions of Egypt and Italy - both expensive failures - but secured few meaningful gains in central Anatolia. His one major attempt ended in catastrophe at Myriokephalon, but even then he would have been wiser to follow in the footsteps of his father, John, by slowly chipping away at the Seljuk strongholds, carefully capturing frontier fortresses rather than risking it all for Iconium. His campaigns in the Balkans were impressive and commendable, I will grant him that.
He could have achieved far more with his 37 years than he actually did.
@Serapeum I wouldn't describe Myriokephalon as a catastrophe, since the Roman Army was largely intact (it was the loss of the siege equipment that caused the campaign to be called off). That description would be much more applicable to the invasion of Egypt (major losses to the Navy), and Italy.
Aside from that minor detail on 1 of Manuel's many campaigns, I think you hit the nail on the head!
@@robertfisher8359 You make a fair point, now that I think about it - perhaps humiliation is a better way of describing Myriokephalon
@Serapeum in terms of court politics...maybe. I'm not sure. Being a military history buff, I often look at things from a martial viewpoint. I'd need more info about it (more reason to get a video on him! 😀 ).
@@robertfisher8359 historians call it a catastrophe just as the battle at Manzikert. NOT because of the battle itself, rather because of what came after. Myriokephalon was the last attempt at dislodging the turks from Anatolia, and it failed, ultimately aiding to the rise of the ottomans. of course, we know what happened after, but back then, nobody could have foreseen the intricate consequences of each battle won or lost, each diplomatic tie made or broken.
"as is so often with tyrants ,they themselves strike the spark that burns their regime down" very prescient.
The Komnenian period is simultaneously the best with the great reigns of Alexios, Ioannes, and Manuel; and worst because you know how everything ends with Andronikos’ tyranny causing the trainwreck of the Angeloids… and then the Fourth Crusade happens.
Amazing video, dude! Some thoughts.
1. He's like a real flesh and bone Daemon Targaryen and the fall of the Byzantines is very GOTesque.
2. Big cities are definetely unruly and prone to mob rule. A lot of Latin American countries have that problem.
3. The massacre of Latins was the biggest "shoot yourself in the foot with a bazooka" of the Byzantines.
The number of Latins living in Constantinople in 1182 must have been far below 80'000 or 60'000 (an exaggerated figure brought up by Eustathios of Thessalonike and which should not be interpreted literally, like many such figures in Byzantine literature). This has been shown by a few scholars decades ago and also more recently (see my book "Latins in Roman (Byzantine) Histories", p. 114). Nevertheless, such implausible figures still enjoy considerable popularity. With the limited available evidence it is hard to estimate, but it has been argued in the scholarship that Constantinople hardly had more than 200'000 inhabitants at the time and that the number of Latins was perhaps around 10'000 (or less).
Do you have any evidence of your sources?
What’s your name?
Ah, you’re Samuel P. Müller!
@@user-cg2tw8pw7jAs I said, I cite secondary sources in my book, and they explain why these figures are very implausible (Samuel P. Müller, Latins in Roman (Byzantine) Histories, p. 114). In addition, my book shows in various other instances that hyperbolic figures are not at all unusual in Byzantine literature.
Reign of Terror of Handsome Debauched Emperor Andronikos cousin of Emperor Manuel I who was a Cruel Monster
Excellent video to accompany Author Siren Celik Biography of Manuel II
A very good explanation to background of Third Crusade
Richard The Lionheart explaining the utter impossibility of any combined collaboration between Latin West and Constantinople
Against their common enemy Islam who finally conquer Constantinople as result of mutual hatred between East and West Christians
I wonder what would've happened if Maria Komnene became empress
Later, would the Vlach's revolt at Asprovlachía, forming an Empire in the name Asănesti brothers that would play a role into the fall of the Byzantine Empire
Andronikos was a fucking legend holy shit
Anybody know why Andronikos I decided to murder Alexios II and not just blind him?
Blinding opponents was a 500 years old tradition Eastern Roman tradition at that point.
Surely must have been a reason why, or maybe Andronikos I was just extraordinary paranoid.
Niketas Choniates says it was a way of getting revenge at Manuel for exiling him all those times. Basically he hated Manuel so much he murdered as much of his family as he could out of revenge. Niketas is very anti Andronicus though so take it with a grain of salt.
@@theeternalanglo5629 Thanks for the answer!
Because he was a cartoonish villian
@@waltonsmith7210 He still would have been that if he just blinded Alexios tho…
@@TheLordRichard yeah but that wouldn't be as evil, duh
Andronikos I Komnenos = Jesus Christ "Some struck him on the head with clubs, others befouled his nostrils with cow-dung, and still others - directly reminiscent of the Gospel - using sponges, poured excretions from the bellies of oxen and men over his eyes." But this is the Gospel, and we recall the famous scene when a sponge was given to Christ. "He was straightway suspended by his feet… to the two small columns on which rested a block of stone that stood near the bronze she-wolf and hyena whose necks were bent down." We recall that two thieves were crucified next to Christ, one on the right and one on the left, and Niketas Choniates also speaks of this but slightly differently, but it's the same story. The stone is Golgotha, the rocky hill on which three crucifixion crosses were placed.
5k subscribers for the quality of this content is an insult, other channels have 200k subs for lower quality videos
How do you make these videos 🤔
I have stories to tell myself
I use DaVinci Resolve to edit my videos, and GIMP to make assets and maps; both are free and fairly easy to use.
Aside from those, the main things you need are time and patience. I started making videos over two years ago, and my earliest content was pretty poor: dodgy narration, low-quality editing, and shoddy maps; sadly, these are just things you'll have to work through as you gain more experience. Nothing comes overnight - that is especially true for CZcams.
@@Serapeum I really appreciate you dude! I love your style of video. So smooth and they convey everything seamlessly. Thanks so much for your words of advice.
39:01 Not cursed...yet
Finaly a good topic the komnenos family fall was the end if Byzantine growth to super power
The komnenos played a house of cards for almost 100 years any mistake would have let to 1204 ad
From 1081 to 1180 ad called the era of appearance of strength
Alexis, John or Manuel - which of these three looks to be the odd one out to you?
Manuel
Pause @00:30 and the 3 individuals can be viewed together, side-by-side. We ALL share the Sun's spectrum and this is reflected / absorbed in varying amounts. Finding colour differences in people is totally consistent with the above. It's the 'shape and form' of something that differentiates, not colours.
Imagine how weak the chins of these emperors were
It was a catastrophic blunder for the Christians to let go of Constantinople.
The area around the lakes was under Roman control. That's where Myriokephalon took place.
Sure it was huge lost but It was the end of world Manuel didn't do nothing until turks united again
Yo Michael I like ur reign even it degenerates one
It seems most of Byzantine history could be summed up as a series of unfortunate events
Twice the pride, double the fall
You really shouldn’t use the term “Russia” because it was not the name of a state at the time.
I thought the komneniens fought back with an army of clone soldiers.
Love the video, but not a fan of the name of the state used in it. "byzantine empire" Is an anachronistic coinage from their western rival. Such a term should have been discarded long ago but people still insist on it for some reason.
Love Romans are the epitome of the phrase, "Live by the sword, die by the sword." One of the most epic stories on earth.
A wayward and difficult person uses charm and wit as a way of manipulating when they do not have power.
Once they have power...the wayward and difficult is given its head.
Usually such people resent having had to charm people in the past.
Narcissists are generally called "superficially charming".
Women, some women, learned to understand this, which is why mothers often tell their daughters to look out for the charming men, and avoid them like the plague.
You are better off with someone who has never been wayward and prefers calm to drama.
The US is reaping the rewards of thinking someone who some people used to regard as charismatic (I never saw this) and "roguish" (ie broke laws constantly and treated women horribly) was a good idea for a President. A man who lost money running a casino...the impossible. And of course when he lost power, he tried to overthrow the country...and nearly did.
He reminds me of Ceasar Gallus.
Why aren’t these made in Chronological order?
You get context along the main story, so to not overwhelm you with information.
Instead of making exclusively videos on the decadence and FALL of the Akkadians, the East Roman Empire, the Komnenians or single imperators. generals, great artists and Saints WHY do You never realise videos on their ACHIEVEMENTS ?
We are living a period of occidental accelerated decadence and we urgently need good examples, triumphs, famous constructions with their beauty and advantages, creation of successful social entreprises ?¿?¿?
... ...
If Turks hadn't been such habibis we could've viewed their Empire as a continuation of Eastern Rome
Its Manuel fault he wasted so much chance to retake Anatolia he tried for year and two in 1143 to 1144 then second crusade happened wish was big shot to retake Anatolia yet he didn't help them just got rid of them then wasted time from 1148 to 1159 on failed invasion of south italy nearly succeeded but was big huge risk for money and men power then then campaign on calicia and antique and force them to be vassal state in 1160 he had to deal with antique raid on Cyprus then sorta campaign in Anatolia against the turk from 1160 to 1161 wish he won but gains just force the saljiks on vassal state again wish turks needed to recover he 15 years until 1175 with peaceful with the turks wish he wasted on nothing then he campaign on bullkans from 1165 and won huge territory from Hungary and tried to make bella the 3rd as his as hair and merry maria this is good idea to runite the realms yet he said no on.last sec because his son was born 1168 he wasted more time on failed campaign in Egypt 1169 to 1170 then kicked the Venetian in 1171 then started to play political with italian states he got revena and millan as vassal state in 1173 but all crumbl years later by 1175 truks reunited and conquer the danishman Manuel tried to gain some land from Danishman but truks said no he he invaded iconim capital of saljik kilije arsnal tried to negotiate but Manuel said no wish lead to battle of 1176
Turks later fail at river battle in 1177 then Manuel defends another invasion in 1179 and died a year later
He had so much time and blow it.on useless campaign in west
you should have really stated clearly what exactly a “Latin” is relative to the time period, cultural placement of the word etc.
its just confusing on what you exactly mean by a latin as even the damn french can be considered latin
French, Italians, Germans, probably English and Spanish.....any western European who followed the Latin Rite.
@@waltonsmith7210 thank you for this
Why cant i find my first comment???
Happy Turkish noises
Ur everywhere tho 😂🤔
1182 ad ;( 1211ad
happy out of fear
They were not Byzantine, they called themselves Romans. The Turks always called them Romans. The word Byzantium is a derogatory word that arose out of jealousy in Western Europe. There was no Byzantium then. It's simple, they didn't know about any Byzantium back then, so you should stop calling someone who didn't call himself that! Roman is not a nationality. Anyone could become a Roman citizen.
How Christian Romans ruled their Empire ?
" During the 960 AD , Crime (in Constantinople ) was rife , especially in the dark and crowded quarters . Prostitution flourished , one visitor primly asserting that just as Constantinople exceeded other cities in wealth , so it excelled them in vice.
Various attempts had been made by the authorities to stamp it out , including the creation of a sanctuary for those who wanted to escape exploitation . It was much more common , however , for emperors to be numbered among the clients than among the rescuers of prostitutes."
" In around 1200 , a riot began over the arrest and flogging of a thief. The crowd were incensed because they knew that the man had been acting on the no order of a corrupt prison governer, John Lagos , who set his charges free by night to steal and then took a cut of the proceeds ".
Book : CONSTANTINOPLE capital of byzantium
AUTHOR : Jonathan Harris
page : 131, 139
EDITION 2007
" Constantinople itself is squalid and fetid and in many places afflicted
by permanent darkness, for the wealthy overshadow the streets with
buildings and leave these dirty, dark places to the poor and to
travellers. There murders and robberies and other crimes of the night are committed.People live untouched by the law in this city,
for all its rich men are bullies and many of its poor men are thieves. A criminal knows neither fear nor shame, for crime is not punished by law and never comes entirely to light.'
"By the time of Justinian we know that the Mese, the 'Middle Street' that ran
through the city from east to west, was a busy daily market - and that 'more than 500 prostitutes' conducted their business there according to
Procopius".
Book: TASTES OF
BYZANTIUM ,
the cuisine of a
legendary empire
Author : Andrew Dalby
Edition : 2010
p - 38 ,60
" Constantinople had many brothels - the most famous were located in side streets near the Forum of
Constantine. Foreign visitors were shocked by the vice they saw in the streets, especially the
prostitutes who openly worked the streets. The Crusaders expressed dismay at them and then
patronized them. The city regulated prostitution under the city prefect and they were taxed.....One can assume women also worked independently as
sex workers throughout the city. They also worked privately in the neighborhoods of the city, living in
shacks right alongside churches. One account says they could be very noisy - you could hear them in
the local church during services - which indicates drinking was probably going on there, too. The church seems to have ignored the trade..... Some of the annual religious holidays associated with specific saints had devolved into excuses for drunkness , ribaldry and licentiousness......Ode of Deuil, who visited Constantinople for 23 days in 1147 with the French King, Louis VII and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine, reports : Constantinople is Christian in name, not in fact.
Source : " Daily life in 12th century Constantinople"
Author: Bob Atchison
www.pallasweb.com/deesis/daily-life-in-constantinople.html
Muslim bot
@@strahinjastevic7480
Yes muslim but not lier
Way past 2 lines. Not readable
Great video. Your videos are really high quality
Excellent content !!!