How the Eastern Roman Army Declined - Armies and Tactics DOCUMENTARY
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- Claim your SPECIAL OFFER for MagellanTV here: try.magellantv.com/kingsandge.... Start your free trial TODAY so you can watch the documentary called Byzantium, Crusaders, and Venice and the rest of MagellanTV’s history collection: www.magellantv.com/explore/hi...
The Kings and Generals animated historical documentary series on the evolution of the Roman Army continues with the fourth episode of the series on the Army of the Eastern Roman Empire - the Byzantine Empire. In this episode, we'll talk about the late era Byzantine army and will see how it declined during the era of the Seljuk expansion, Fourth Crusade, and the rise of the Ottomans
Armies and Tactics: • Armies and Tactics
Late Roman Army: • Military Reforms of Di...
Roman Imperial Cavalry: • Roman Imperial Cavalry...
Roman Army during the Crisis of the Third Century: • Roman Army during the ...
Creation of the Medieval Roman Army: • Creation of the Mediev...
Strategikon - Army Manual of the Byzantine Army: • Strategikon - Army Man...
Elite and Levy Units of the Eastern Roman Army: • Elite and Levy Units o...
Justinian's Restoration: • Battle of Dara 530 Rom...
Support us on Patreon: / kingsandgenerals or Paypal: paypal.me/kingsandgenerals or by joining the youtube membership: / @kingsandgenerals We are grateful to our patrons and sponsors, who made this video possible: docs.google.com/document/d/1o...
The video was made by Arb Paninken bit.ly/2Ow3oC8, while the script was developed by Dimitris Koutsoumis. This video was narrated by Officially Devin ( / @offydgg & / @gameworldnarratives )
✔ Merch store ► teespring.com/stores/kingsand...
✔ Patreon ► / kingsandgenerals
✔ Podcast ► kingsandgenerals.libsyn.com/ iTunes: apple.co/2QTuMNG
✔ PayPal ► paypal.me/kingsandgenerals
✔ Twitter ► / kingsgenerals
✔ Facebook ► / kingsgenerals
✔ Instagram ► / kings_generals
Production Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound: www.epidemicsound.com
#Documentary #ByzantineArmy #Romans
Previous Episodes:
Creation of the Medieval Roman Army: czcams.com/video/hFVpbJhawqk/video.html
Strategikon - Army Manual of the Byzantine Army: czcams.com/video/5GafRHOEEzc/video.html
Elite and Levy Units of the Eastern Roman Army: czcams.com/video/nezpRl9VkcU/video.html
Kindly make videos on Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W.W.)'s battles
im not prepared for this video....why =[
@@marcus4046 Litteraly nobody in modern day is crying for the Eastern Romans. Nobody is crying for the millions of young white girls and women who were shipped off to arab Anatolia, Syria and Egypt and sold as you-know-what. Nobody is crying for the Eastern Romans.
@@marcus4046 It's the Catholic crusaders who did the most damage, most brutal and the most crushing. The Ottomans jusf finished what remained of it
Greece has an army, an air force, a navy
Until you guys started doing all the videos about the Ottomans and Byzantines, I never thought much about that rea of the world. You guys have showed me how truly fascinating it is.
@@thekraken1173 it goes much deeper than this. Lots of history in the Balkans.
Anatolia and the surrounding landscapes never really caught up to me until I watched a few videos from K&G... and now I'm obsessed.
Yes Asia minor and the Balkan or Haemus have a lot of history. That's also where the first European language was made
@@thekraken1173 so we have to teach it to you, because your educational system is almost as bad as your foot
@@thekraken1173 feel better now for correcting him . I bet you’re a serb.
As a history teacher, I'm loving that the Eastern empire is getting more coverage and engaging pieces such as these. It really helps for engaging students and allowing them to visualise things!
In that time Paper was not available.. So the Quran was used to written on stones and sometimes on the Bones of dead animals or sometimes on woods.Prophet Muhammad(SAW) had more than 100000 Companions.Most of them were intelligent.And Prophet Muhammad(SAW) became able to memorise the coming verses of God(God of all) then he would teach those verses to his(SAW) companions.And his companions also used to memorise those verses.Gradually the Companions of him became able to memorise the whole Quran by the time(when the time nearly came -prophet Muhammad's death).After that the One of the four famous Khalifa (of Golden age) Hazrat Umar(Ra) ordered his people to call all the Hafizes of Complete Quran and then he ordered his people to record the verses of Quran.And the names of the Surahs of Quran were named directly by prophet Muhammad(SAW).So it became easy for Hazrat Umar(Ra) to record the complete Quran.And it was recorded in paper(because it was available at that time).So from then till now not a single word(in arabic) of Quran has been changed.But the translation may differ sometimes.
I would like they call it by the name used in their time
Basileia tom Rhomaion
stop sleeping in class!
Subbed to you
@@thebelieverbangla4353 it's funny we subjugated and enslaved your ancestors and here you are spreading and preaching our teachings of islam while we erased your cultural and traditional heritage, the British may have "colonized" you later but remember we the arabs are your first masters
In resume, this is the golden era of Kings and Generals. This guy covers a lot of Byzantine history. Pls do more, i'm a byzantophile.
You should check out a podcast called The History of Byzantium, the host goes through Byzantine history in easy to digest detail from the fall of the west all the way till the ottomans taking Constantinople.
@@Caesars_Legate Spotify?
There are no "Byzantophiles". There was no "Byzantine Empire". It's merely a fabricated term made by historians.
There are only Romanophiles and the Roman Empire (753 BC - 1453 AD). You're a Romanophile too
@Palmeiras Supremo Palmeiras 🤡🤡🤡 Relegation team
@@srbtlevse16 os br invadiram os comentários
Let's appreciate the fact that all this knowledge is FREE. So, thank you, kind sir.
@@TriscuitSnacksIf anything, he understated the massive partisan assistance that Social Media platforms have rendered to the Demploracract Party. You are either incredibly uninformed of mere basic current events and events, or agreeable to an encroaching totalitarian system.
@@The_ConqueeftadorHe is a joke. A bad joke, and it may be on us.
Great reference to the Cretan archers, the last defenders of Constantinople! The Cretans were always the most fiercely loyal soldiers of Rhomania (and still are...). The Cretan archers in 1453 AD, were led by Manousos Kallikratis the Lord of the Sfakia region, who still held the byzantine title of Drougarrios (i.e. admiral). They answered immediately to the call of Constantine Palaiologos for help, and even if Crete was under the Venetians's rule, Kallikratis was able to recruit 800 men, and and with 5 ships they sailed for Constantinople. After a fierce sea battle with the Ottoman navy in Propontis, in which Kallikratis was killed, the remained Cretans arrived in the City, and they were offered the duty to defend three towers. They continued to fight, even when the City has fallen. The Ottomans amazed by their loyalty to the fallen Emperor, and their bravery, they allowed the last remaining Cretans, return to their island. There is also a legend that their ship never returned to Crete, but remains in a place out of time, until the Marble King will rise again, and the last defenders of Constantinople, will return to fight at his side... The Cretan archers have an incredible, almost 2.500 years long, history. Starting from the Trojan War, where the best Achean archer is Meriones from Crete, and continue to the Cretan archers of Xenofon in his famous "March of the 10.000", and those of Alexander the Great's, and arriving until the Late Byzantine Era.
What do you mean with still are?
@@jimfastenau4984 i think he mean modern Greece army
@@jimfastenau4984 I mean that 30% of the modern Greek millitary officers are coming from Crete.
So sad that Byzantyne use the same technology(armor,weapon) with the 5th century to 15 th century, in 15th century, West Euro used full plate armor and canon in battle!
@@jadenpham8020 The economic decline of the Byzantine state prohibited any chance to follow the evolution of the millitary technology.
You can honour the Romans by reuniting the Calradian Empire, and avenge the Battle of Pendraic.
Can you tell me what happened during the Battle of Pendraic?
@@johntitor1256 It is a story the imperials would not tell you.
A man of culture I see
This calls for another Imperial run!!!
There’s always time to talk about the Battle of Pendraic
Your pronunciation of Koine Greek is improving, Kings and Generals.
Is it really though? the latest "tweaks" I noticed just made it sound even more awkward than usual imo. No disrespect meant, I love K&G's work, including this episode, but they should either check how greek letters are pronounced (and stressed) by watching an introductory tutorial(super easy), or learn IPA(harder indeed but can prove useful for more than just Greek) or simply give up and stick to one specific English method of mispronouncing Greek instead of clumsily trying to make adjustments in every video after presumably receiving some sloppy piece of "advice" and ending up being all over the place. I'm so grateful they always include subtitles at least, otherwise I might have had trouble figuring out the terms they're using half the time
@@ntonisa6636 at least he reads Omicron + Iota as EE now, or Alpha + Iota as E.
I'm an Orthodox chantor in East Asia so I think K and G is doing baby steps. He is still heavily American English accented obviously.
@@IapetusStag He actually has a very British accent.
@@thomasrinschler6783 *British, sorry.
@@IapetusStag BIG improvement
Every since I first became enthralled with history in grade school (with a healthy dose of AOE 2) the Byzantine Empire has been my favorite state in all history. Thanks for this series!
Really nice to hear that
Cataphracts
Same.
@@widodoakrom3938 yeah, I always thought it was weird Byzantines in AoE2 didn't have Blast Furnace & Bloodlines, when they controlled Damascus for centuries, relied so much on cavalry, and the Eastern foederati were full of Scythians and Sarmatians.
Like, if any of the factions in AoE2 besides the Chinese could claim to actually invent those 2 things on their own...
@@widodoakrom3938 You're not wrong, but it mostly tried to be in the tech trees.
Thank you guys for creating the most detailed video summarizing the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Army on CZcams
The meaning of the pronoun “We” as used in the Qur’an
Question-
Why does the Quran use the term "we" in its ayats?
Many non-believers believe that this may be in reference to Jesus or someone else?
Answer
Praise be to Allah.
It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur’an, where Allaah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue.
(Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 4/143).
“Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Verily, We have given you a manifest victory” [al-Fath 48:1], and other similar phrases. But Allaah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that.”
(Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 75).
These words, innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), and other forms of the plural, may be used by one person speaking on behalf of a group, or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they issue statements or decrees in which they say “We have decided…” etc. [This is known in English as “The Royal We” - Translator]. In such cases, only one person is speaking but the plural is used for respect. The One Who is more deserving of respect than any other is Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, so when He says in the Qur’an innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), it is for respect and glorification, not to indicate plurality of numbers. If an aayah of this type is causing confusion, it is essential to refer to the clear, unambiguous aayaat for clarification, and if a Christian, for example, insists on taking ayaat such as “Verily, We: it is We Who have sent down the Quran.And Surely I will protect it.” [al-Hijr 15:9 - interpretation of the meaning] as proof of divine plurality, we may refute this claim by quoting such clear and unambiguous aayaat as (interpretation of the meanings): “And your god is One God, there is none who has the right to be worshipped except Allah.And He, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful” [al-Baqarah 2:163] and “Say: He is Allaah, the One” [al-Ikhlaas 112:1] - and other aayaat which can only be interpreted in one way. Thus confusion will be dispelled for the one who is seeking the truth. Every time Allaah uses the plural to refer to Himself, it is based on the respect and honour that He deserves, and on the great number of His names and attributes, and on the great number of His troops and angels.
Your videos kickstarted my interest in the Byzantine Empire, so thanks for that! The Empire is one of the most underrated and understudied states in our history. Salute!
I think one of the biggest flaw The Byzantine Empire had was they lack the ability to take Heavy Losses and still be able to replace troops compared their predecessors like the Roman Republic, despite having more wealth, manpower and resources than the latter. The Roman Republic during the 2nd Punic Wars took massive casualties fighting Hannibal but were able to field legions in very little time to fight him again.
There is a huge difference between a republic and an empire.
The old.roman empire had more recources and the lost of Anatolia territory to the byzantine caused a manpower problem until the end of their days.
It's the difference of professionals and semi-professionals. Rome was able to field legions upon legions during the punic wars thanks to their levying system.
They have fair distribution of wealth that ensured they have some quality of soldiers, not as good as professionals but better than most. Compromised as a consequence of their high casualties in wars during the early republic.
In the empire days, the wealth was gathered by the top elites leading to a lot of poor people which reduced the quality of the entire population, but band aid fixed by professional standing armies so when they experienced setbacks, they lack the ability to replenish them as fast as the republican days. They still need 6 months of training but you can guarantee their quality.
With a lot of poor population, this made things feudal because they were reduced to being serf like slavery which made recruitment a problem since you need permission of the nobles lording upon the poor.
Because plagues devastated the empire. This is one of the causes of population decline. The antonine plague, the cyprian and justinian plague all contributed to the empire’s decline.
This is why the empire recruited more foederati into its ranks. Well, that and pay for soldiers was becoming less rewarding or profitable enough.
@@linming5610 can u provide a source for what u just said... interested to know a bit more in detail Lin :)
Me: *trying to clear my watchlist
Kings and Generals: Here`s our new Video!
Me and My watchlist: More! More!
Same 😂😂
Perfect timing as my Eastern Roman Empire campaign is slowly falling apart
Atilla Total War?
@@davec1294 yup
@@raidang played crusaders as well and didnt last very long.....still new to the game
@@hey_wassup2372 It's rough a mod that I recommend is the Fall of the Eagles mod.
@@davec1294 sounds interesting, ill take a look at it when i get the time
There once was a dream. A dream that fell. And this is how said dream fell.
@John Hathorne Not really but I agree these people are extremely exaggerated it
@John HathorneSounds to me that you simply have something against Romans. "Hiring foreign mercenaries", anyone with enough money did that at the time, it wasn't just the Byzantines. The Byzantines were pretty advanced culturally in a lot of aspects, their legacy helped start the Renaissance. Using fortifications to their advantadge? Well everyone did that as well walls are very usefull to defend cities so I don't get what are you complaining about. Did they have a lot of problems with corruption? Yes. And they are over-romantized. But they are nowhere near how you describe them. They were actually pretty resilient and adaptable which is how they managed to survive that long against all odds surrounded by enemies.
@@masterplokoon8803 Yup, you can see hid old comments, like in Julius Cæsar video.
He said "He was a big gay"
@John Hathorne I think that claiming that the Byzantines were the lowest point in human history is a touch absurd. Also surviving 40 plus sieges and surviving against a world of enemies for a thousand years, ensuring the safety of countless classical texts which inadvertently kickstarted the modern era, blending the classical Greek, Roman and mediaeval cultures and creating countless works of art, architecture and scientific advancement is nothing to scoff at.
@Aurelian, a dream called Rome.
The Tzakones or Τσακώνες, were coming from Lakonia, and the Despotate of Morea, and they were basically the main part of the native soldiers of Constantine Palaiologos during the Siege of Constantinople in 1453. During the Greek War of Independence (1821-1829), the Tzakones were among the most fierce Greek warriors, and they defeated even the troops of the famous Ibrahim Pasha, who was sent from Egypt to supress the Greek Revolution, when the later invaded their land in Lakonia.
@Paul L.T.R And Athanasios Diakos before being impaled alive by the Ottomans, refused to the Ottomans's proposal "Εγω Γραικος γεννηθηκα, Γραικος θε να πεθανω", I.e "Greek i was born and Greek i shall die". Let's not go there please. A people can be known by more than one name. In Greeks's case all the three names were used during the period of the Greek Revolution (Ελλην, Ρωμηος, Γραικος, i.e Hellene, Rhomaios, Greek).
@Paul L.T.R "Αλλοίμονον, αλλοίμονον στο γένος των Ρωμαίων....
Ω, πως εκαταστάθηκε το γένος των Ελλήνων...
Σ’εμας εις όλους τους Γραικούς να έλθη τούτ’ την ώρα...
In this poem by the Bishop Myreon Matthaiou, about the Fall of Constantinople, written in 1619 (150 years before Korais), used all the three names. Many people through History have been called by different names simultaneously. For exampe the British, we also call them English at the same time. It's not that hard to understand...
@Paul L.T.R Its sad to see uneducated people make clowns out of themselves. We can see the words Graiko and Hellen even in lexicons of the 10th, 11th, 12th century. "Graikos to genos ton Romaion" as mentioned in the Suda Lexicon. Need I remind the letters of Vatatzes? The works of Plethon? Pls save yourself from further humiliation and study primary sources. Korais was a fanatic, a man whose faulty ideology did much damage to the modern hellenic academia. You on the other hand, are a fanatic of the opposite side. Ironic
@@god-emperorofmankind8540 Did I ever say all Romans are Greek? You do not understand the context of the thread, which is national identification of Greeks within the multiethnic Roman society and subsequently the national conciousness of Greeks in 19th century Pelloponese and Rumeli. The above argues that they would not identify as Greek on top of Roman which is FALSE. Historical cold facts
@@god-emperorofmankind8540 And I will also adress your silly analogy, that identifying as Rhomaios would get you funny looks in modern Greece. It betrays that you have little grasp of Greek society and culture. The Roman identity is a big part of culture, from music to poetry, literature and folk tradition. Many older people do indeed call themselves and the nation as a whole Roman sometimes, my own family included. Dont try to be a smartass when you dont know what you are even talking about
Great to see a much improved Greek pronunciation 👏🏻. No Asia Minor, no taxes and manpower.
Thus explains why the Byzantines don't have gunpowder units in either Age of Empires 2 or Medieval 2 Total War.
One common misconception is that the mighty themes army was destroyed after Manzikert, when in reality the themes system basically fell apart in the early 11th century and was a reason why Manzikerk happened.
Basically more and more of the themes began focusing on making money instead of quality soldiers and the Empire began relying more and more on foreign mercenaries with no real loyalty to the state. Most of the Byzantine army deserted manzikert even before the fighting started
On top of that you had the issue of more of the Eastern Roman citizenry wanting to take more administrative/bureaucratic jobs over soldiery and a centralization of the leaders that only cared about what happened in Constantinople (and maybe some other cities like Thessaloniki and Adrianople). Thus the theme system slowly wilted away while the military had to rely more on mercenaries. And after Manzikert, to compensate for the lost land, the citizens were taxed even more to fund these militias and the lavish lifestyle of the nobles, which in the long run depopulated whole regions of the Empire. It was a self-destructive negative feedback loop.
well, overspending after Constantine VIII was a problem. so much so that by the time of Constantine X Doukas, the superb and very competent byzantine army was left to dissolve, the lack of pay for training and equipment saw it diminishing year after year. instead of using the wealth of the lands and rejuvenate the economy, they did what the Western Roman Empire did: hire mercenaries, instead of training loyal subjects and giving them a stake in defending the empire. romans were known for learning and adapting. but also by repeating same mistakes over and over again. poor Romanos IV did not really have much of an army, i think more than half were just mercenaries. Basil II fought for nothing. those fools after him ruined everything :((
Exactly, I’ve even read that many Byzantines considered fighting beneath Romans, that lesser barbarian peoples fought for them
@@storymaker299 you mentioned byzantines and romans within the same sentence. Are you speaking if Eastern Romans commenting over their western cousins during the 5th century?
No, I’m referring to the Byzantine empire to distinguish it from the west but recognizing that they would’ve called themselves Romans
Been a long follower of this channel. Great work guys. As a history enthusiast, I'd like to thank you for your hard work. ❤️
Early firearms must have been terrifying to try and use. About as likely to kill you as they were your target
And you could shoot the handguns maybe 6 times per hour.
@@cyrusol actually 60 times per hour, if it took about a minute to reload.
@@lux2132 No.
@@cyrusol You failed to be a troll
@@lux2132 I don't troll. You're wrong. Educate yourself.
Anything related to the Eastern Roman Empire is rare to find on youtube, you guys are awesome for covering it.
Indeed
Excellent video once again by Kings and Generals.
Amazed that you included the detail about the Cretan archers!
*sees title*
Mom: Why are you crying?
Me: I'm not crying you are
The videos about the Byzantines are very interesting!
Your in-depth and truely historical approach is just unsurpassed.
The eastern empite has always been painted as a dainty empire. Cant be true if they lasted that long.
It's because of its unique history. It wasnt a separate Empire from the Roman Empire, but it was certainly a different civilisation. The defining traits of which were Greek language and Christianity. The overwhelming odds it faced as well aren't considered, being located between the middle east, balkans and Africa which have never stopped being major conflict zones. The lack of reliable allies for religious and historical reasons. Looking at it simply, someone could say it was a perpetually declining empire. But many other states which existed at the same time it did declined and died a lot faster.
@@joek600 The came from the same origin, but the civilisation was definitely different. I know the history of the Hellenic language and identity in the Roman Empire. It was a different civilisation because its culture and root was entirely different from earlier Rome, even if the state and institutions they inherited were entirely the same.
@@cormacmcquillan828 That's silly. That's like saying America is a different civilization compared to 200 years ago because the culture has changed.
The official religion of the united ancient Roman empire was Orthodox Nicene Christianity, so as it was with the Byzantines.
The official languages of the united ancient Roman empire were just Latin and Greek, and they always were, so as they were with the Byzantines.
You're mistaking a linguistic dichotomy for a cultural one. The Romans didn't just leave the east one day, nor did they suddenly change their ethnic or cultural identity. They did slowly abandon Latin as it became vestigial, but they never fully abandoned it. They were still using it for official purposes as late as 1080. You're picking out points of one culture as it developed over 1500 years and saying "see? Different!"
@@histguy101 Language is the biggest part of culture, simple because its how we communicate it. The Roman civilisation was a Latin pagan one. The Byzantines were a Hellenic Christian civilisation. Thats the difference. So what the Nicene church was the unifying church at the time, there was still significant cultural differences between east and west which developed into different civilisations. So what they infleunced each other, but the Greek and Latin world were very different places altogether.
@@cormacmcquillan828 The Greek language was part of Roman culture and widely spoken in Italy, especially in Rome. During the middle Republican era around the time of the punic wars, the Roman Senate was supposedly conducting their meetings in Greek. The first Roman historians(starting with Quintus Fabius Pictor), also from that era, wrote their histories only in Greek. Marcus Aurelius wrote his private memoirs in Greek, and the famous Roman historian and senator Cassius Dio wrote his works in Greek.
Whether true or not, the Romans believed they descended from Greeks. They also believed the Latin language had its roots in Greek. Two of Rome's first seven kings(the two Tarquins) were said to be the son and grandson of Demaratus of Corinth, and according to Cato the censor (surviving in a quote by John Lydus) Romulus and his companions spoke Greek. The legendary king Latinus was said to be a son of Odysseus. Much of the common cultural identity of the different ethnic groups in Italy, Greece, and elsewhere went back to Homer, regardless of what language they spoke, and the Roman education system from very early on, all the way through Byzantine times began with Homer.
As far as their religion, you're creating a dichotomy between Pagan/Latin and Christian/Greek that only exists in your mind due to your own associations. The Greeks were also pagan, just like the Romans. _Christianity didn't originate with the Greeks,_ and when it spread around the Roman world, it spread in the west and east. Look at the early church writers. They're from all over the place, and write in Latin and Greek. One of the earliest churches on record was at Rome.
Constantine set the Roman world on the path to becoming fully Christianized. He was a Latin speaking western emperor, who allegedly couldn't speak Greek well.
What you're claiming here is that the Greeks can become Christian and still be Greeks, but if the Romans become Christian, they're no longer Romans. That simply doesn't make sense. Christianity became so embedded in Roman culture that "Roman" became synonymous with "Christian" and "Hellene" became synonymous with "pagan," the exact opposite of what you're espousing. The emperor Julian was called "Julian the Hellene." Why was he called this? Julian was certainly a Roman and the Roman emperor(of the west and later sole emperor), but he was called this because he was pagan in the era of Christian emperors.
Thank you for this episode!! Just what Ive been looking for!
Probably the best history channel out there! The art style is amazing!
Germanics: “Finally, something Roman we can’t be blamed for…”
In pre-Islamic times, women were socially despised and humiliated... They were treated worse than a slave girl. Even if someone gave birth to a daughter, burying her alive was a common thing in those days..
Islam has come and given respect to women.. Gave them back their lost rights.. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said, "Your paradise is under your mother's feet.(one must respect her mother) " In another hadith, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) Said, "Who has three daughters or three sisters or two daughters or two sisters; And he nurtures them properly and works for them (in his heart) fearing Allah; In return, he will reach Paradise forever. "'(Tirmidhi)
Prophet Muhammad (SAW)said, " Whoever has three daughters will bear the hardships of raising them and provide for them according to his ability; On the Day of Resurrection, that girl child will be an obstacle for her on the way to Hell. '(Ibn Majah)
Violence against the girl child decreases somewhat after the exhortation; Then the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) declared, ‘I urge you to be kind to women. You accept my instruction. '(Bukhari)
Women's education in Islam
Regarding teaching women, the Holy Qur'an says, "Treat them (women) well and teach them to behave well." (Surah 4 Nisa, verse 19).
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) declared, ‘Whoever has a daughter, if he does not despise and neglect her (in all matters, including education) and does not give precedence to the son over her; Allah Ta'ala will admit him to Paradise. '
He added, "You give good advice to women (educate them in good education)."
Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said, ‘Learning (acquiring knowledge) is an obligation (duty) on every Muslim man and woman.’ (Ummus Sahihain, Ibn Majah Sharif).
Therefore, the number of hadiths narrated from Hazrat Aisha (ra) among the books of hadith is 2,210, which is the second highest among all the Companions.
Islam has given that status to women as mothers
Hazrat Abu Huraira narrated that once a man came to the court of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and asked, "Who is more deserving of my benefit?" Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said, ‘Your mother’. The man asked, then who? He replied ‘Your mother’. The man asked again, then who? This time too he replied ‘your mother’. (Bukhari).
Needless to say, no Nothing in the world has given so much respect and dignity to women before Islam or like Islam..
A muslim Woman can get education from schools, colleges and universities and even she can do job or higher studies. But there is one condition that she has to maintain the veil of her body completely(for both married or unmarried woman)(but an married woman must take permission from her husband) (ie- muslim women have to follow all the orders of Allah and prophet Muhammad (SAW) in this regard)..But if she violates Allah's order then Allah will send her to the Hell.
Explanation -By maintaining the veil of body completely a woman saves another woman's marriage. Imagine a married man is walking with his wife in the path.Suddenly he watches a girl(who does not cover her body-ie-what the western women do actually). He starts liking that girl more than his wife..And he can't control himself..Do u know what happens next actually..That married make illegal relationship with that girl and after some days start dating and the final result is the girl becomes rapped..Then think how will that man's married wife will feel...After knowing all this things that legal wife will give divorce to that man...And that ugly girl is responsible for all this things...Maybe u can now think that why will that man do that?Answer-Allah has created both men and women in that way so they have attraction to each other...So if the women think that they are modern they should follow Allah's order(maintain the veil of her body completely)(so that they don't have to be the cause of legal man and woman's divorce)..So as a result man(both married and unmarried) will not look at the woman(maintaining the veil of her body completely)( with a bad intention or attraction). And man also should be careful.They should give time to their legal wife and love them not to any girlfriend. Maybe Allah will help them if they don't violate the order of Allah and prophet Muhammad (SAW)
@@thebelieverbangla4353 that’s awesome man
@@thebelieverbangla4353 this has nothing to do with the video
@@thebelieverbangla4353 nice joke, made me laugh
@@2yoyoyo1Unplugged romans had nothing to do with this
By far the most interesting nation in the medieval ages. They fought barbarians, steppe nomads, catholic nations, arabs, crusaders, vikings. They fucking did it all and were in the forefront of history. They shaped Slavic civilization, and had a legendary capital, a jewel to behold. Everything about the Byzantines is just EPIC.
except there internal political problems
@@tezcanuyank3446 Everyone had these kinds of problems.
And it proved that their worst enemy was themselves
I really like the army and organizational series you've been doing it really cool and helps i guess make sense of the relative capabilities of groups during their respective periods.
Excellent video, as always!
You guys should do episodes like these on other medieval armies such as the Condottieri companies of Italy
Thanks!
Hope to see continuation of the videos about Nikephoros Phokas, John Tsimiskes, and maybe the next is about Alexios and John Komnenos.
Super great video as always!! Thank you!
Good job, thanks for this content!
Can you do an episode on the history and origin of the Bulgars,this will be very interesting.
It’s still impressive that the empire survived another 400 years after losing most of its core lands
Although frequently abandoned by the bureaucracy its troops fought tenaciously especially in Asia minor.
Last stronghold of Philadelphia probably fell in 1420.The Ottomans achieved a foothold due to decades of greek civil wars
Is it still an empire after it becomes one fortified city?
@@Richard0292 no it become a weak city state
@@tezcanuyank3446 Yep. Thats what I thought.
@@Richard0292 Depending of the explanation of this term
Your videos are of superb quality and imense depth. Thanks a lot!
Thanks for the content!
Great video as always! The Pronoia system turned to be a decline for the millitary system of ERE, in comparison to the Themata. I would like also to add that there was the late Byzantine light cavalry, known as the "Στρατιώτες", the Stradioti who served in various fields of Western Europe, even long after the Fall of Constantinople. Was basically the last ERE millitary unit.
Giovanni Giustiniani's injury and withdrawal from the siege really morally crippled the weakened defenders, I wonder how much more they would've lasted if Giovanni had not been so badly wounded.
How can you fight on the frontline for days and weeks and not get wounded? ... not possible!
Good and informative video as always
Magnificent artwork and storytelling, really brings this rather obscure period open to be visualised by any interested
Im going to keep saying this Manzikert was not the catalyst for the eventual destruction of the Eastern Roman armies. It was the civil wars between various military aristocracies like the Doukas clan that allowed the Seljuks to exploit the infighting to take large swathes of anatolia.
This is already seen in the 10th century. The phokas and Skelleros families were already fighting for power early on in the 10th century restoration.
@Akio jayyid You seem to discount the fact that the Romans and Persians had just finished a 30 year long war which had destroyed both empires, exhausted their armies and treasuries. The Muslims made no miraculous victory, it was the Romans and Persians being exhausted by their 30 year war.
@Akio jayyid the reformations of Themata and the Akrites creation, as well as a more easternized empire, were formed after the loss of Palestine and Syria, forming the Themes. Then, the Heraclius reign ended in 641, some years before the Muslims annex Egypt, Maghreb and Armenia, which lead to a period of a weak Heraclians leaders until Emperor Constance who with wrong actions had made his navy to lose an important fight against the Arabs, and only after he also got overthrown the stability in the east borders arrived. We should also not forget that Heraclius fought a really powerful Sassanid empire and some hundreds of thousands of Slavs, and a fanaticized army of a Caliphate led by some of the most known Arab tacticians it isn't a surprise that the Levante and North Africa fell. If the Arabs didn't invade, it is probably that the Byzantine foederatoi would have taken over, or Sassanids could have won in the long run
The worst enemies of Romans were themselves.when the did not fight themselves, and had good generals, they could defend the empire or even conquer more lands
@Akio jayyid You know nothing about ancient logistics. The war between the Romans and Persians was far more exhausting, unlike the Arabian penensula which was mostly desert and inhabited by nonads the Persian and Roman Empires were advanced urbanised empires, wars were waged mostly by taking cities and prolonged campaigns which were far more exhausting than the Islamic conquests. Stability? The Romans were dealing with the Miaphysite controversy that had plagued the Empire even before the war. One of the reasons the Romans lost at Yarmouk was because the army wasn't united due to the religious division that had already existed. During the Persian wars many cities had allowed the Persians to enter the gates because they were majority Miaphysite.
@Akio jayyid Unified? No. This is an oversimplification. The Romans after Emperor heraclius’s wars suffered a heavy loss of professional soldiers. Emperor Heraclius won the war not by defeating Sassanian armies in the field in their own territories but in the caucasus which favor Roman infantry deployment. Heraclius lured Sassanian armies to the caucasus and destroyed them piecemeal. The persian general Sharbaraz who i might add destroyed numerous roman armies. He was defeated in a couple battles but was eventually convinced to turn against Khosrow II after Heraclius supposedly intercepted a letter informing one of Sharbaraz’s officers to kill him. This is one of the key factors that allowed heraclius to continue his campaign.
In his book, The armies of ancient persia by Dr Kaveh Farrokh speculates that both empires lost up to 200,000-300,000 men. This is a major loss. Heraclius may have won, but the damage done to his empire was immense. It would take decades to recover.
Some of the sources which depict the Romans as having more than 20,000 in yarmouk in 636 AD can’t be taken seriously as we must take into account that both empires lost immense amount of professional soldiers. Morale was low for the war torn populace which open their gates and prefer lower taxes and to avoid sacking of their cities. Less of a steamroll and more of a population tired of war.
There was also the ongoing conflict between Chalcedonian, monophysites and miaphysites. With the chalcedonian creed enforcing its religion on a diverse eastern region does not inspire a lot of loyalty in its citizens. There is also an account of Heraclius massacring many jews for their treachery against them during the persian wars when they helped Sharbaraz capture Jerusalem.
The Justinian plague may have also contribute to the decline in population in most cities and seems to have reoccured in later eras of the 8th century.
I’m not going to discredit the arabs. They did an impressive job. Like you said they were fighting a two front war against one of the most powerful nations of their time. It was quite the achievement. To suggest it was a “steamroll” in your words is i’m afraid oversimplifying a very complex era.
Awesome. So rich and diverse. No wonder AOE 2 unit tech is so diverse and so complete
great video! I really like that you do so much about that area now. Maybe we should too :D But it is fascinating how much people know about western roman army equipment (republic/early empire) but so little about the eastern armies!
Great videos, I've been watching them in order and I would have learned so much more in High School if I had watched these videos. I wish there was a way to actually sort all the videos by chronological order.
Incredible how people only trash talk about this empire when it was the model to the west empires and kingdoms
I love history… Your great channel is exceptional, due to the details and graphics… Regards 🇶🇦
راجع وافتخر بالتاريخ الاسلامي…. وليس هؤلاء الكفار؟ معلوماتهم فيها كثير من المغالطات
@@singrest2006
يا أخوي الكريم؛ أفتخر بحضارتنا الإسلامية… الحمد لله حضارتنا الإسلامية هي من هزمت الحضارة البيزنطية و غيرها… لكني مهتم بالتاريخ بشكل عام… طبعاً مهم أننا نعرف تاريخنا، و لكن من الحكمة معرفة تاريخ خصومنا… تحياتي🇶🇦
Thank you , K&G .
Another great video mate.
Keep up the good work.
❤️❤️❤️🌼🌹🌷🌸
I’m into history, And i’ve learned a lot from watching this.
This makes me remembered this debate here. Who is the real Caesar here? Here's the three candidates:
1 The Ottoman Sultan with the claim of having Constantinople in possession.
2 The Tsar of Russia with the bloodline of the last Roman Emperor's niece.
3 The Western European King who is crowned as the Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope.
None. There is no heir to the roman empire. None of these had any distinctive roman attributes to them and neither did their people feel strongly about being a roman. The Eastern roman empire is not even an heir to the romans. They were the ROMAN EMPIRE. Though i suppose you could call them a remnant.
Neither, the only one who hold the claim to the tittle is the king of the Spain Felipe.
@@zamirroa You didn't know that the word "Tsar" is actually the corrupted word of Caeser, right? Plus, I heard Mehmed the Conqueror proclaimed himself Caesar of the Romans after he took Constantinople.
@@lerneanlion what does it have to do with what i said? The family members that survived to the conquest of Constantinople sold their claims to the tittle of emperor of Romans to the Catholic kings of Castille and Aragon. The actual king of Spain is the one who have legit claim to the tittle of Roman empire.
@@zamirroa But they never bothered to use such a title. Heck, Charles did not even aware pf it because if he did, he would not need to enter the Imperial election of 1519 like at all.
Part of the blame should go to the Crusaders. In the fourth crusade, instead of Jerusalem, the crusaders went to Constatinople and ransacked the city. A lot of wealth and their defence system suffered due to these deeds by the Crusaders.
You can blame the Crusaders for that. But you should mainly blame the Byzantines themselves. It was a self inflicted wound. The Byzantines were their own worst enemy with all their corruption, deceit, and inefficiencies. They were strong in many areas, but were fragile in too many others.
Thank you!
Excellent historical channel ( king's and generals) in clearly explaining all factors which create events and donating enjoying time's in look at its video's sharing
Cretan Archers, a symbol of force that saw Greek city states, Carthage, Rome and Byzantine’s rise and falls.
Fuck did Cretan archers have to do with the falls of the Romans, Carthaginians, and Byzantines?
Ottoman Timar System would be epic for video idea. Just saying..
Yes they should do a video
Not in itself. Why stop just at the Timar system? A video about the entire Classical Ottoman Army would be the best.
The Timar system on its own is just a natural development of the Iqta system meeting the Pronoia system.
It's close to the Byzantine Proniar System.
Omg thank you for making this 😩
Byzantine tv series would be great. Like Viking or black sail but with the focus on varangians or the emperor as a whole
It really would be, I’m reading the Alexiad right now and I keep thinking about how great of a series this would be.
It would be awesome. There is so mutch material..... it is enough for 30 seasons....xD
and it would be aslo great when they would use the original language of that time like in the mel gibsons movies. Ahhh sry... im dreaming.... xD
It's strange to me that while most of Europe was living in (relative) squalor in the Dark Ages and early Middle Ages, Byzantium was still going strong. I know the condition of Europe at this time is something that's disputed and someone will probably disagree but basically, just while most of Europe is picking up the pieces of the Western Roman Empire and building the European Kingdoms, Byzantium was still there.
15:40 Pontic walnuts (as they were called in Greek, if I'm not mistaken) are hazelnuts. That region still produces most of the entire world's hazelnuts.
Interesting video!!!
"Η Ρωμανία κι αν πέρασεν ανθεί και φέρει κι άλλο...!"
"Although Rhomania (land of the Romans) passed away...it still blossoms and will come again...!"
Traditional Greek proverb
I never knew that the Byzantines had Handguns during 1453 siege,I knew about the artillery though
Well I knew cause I read a couple primary accounts years ago, but before reading that I had also falsely assumed that they did not.
¡Gracias!
It would be great to hear more about military episodes about the very late Byzantine Empire (reconquest of Morea during the ‘30 and the revolt of ‘53/54). They are quite unknown episodes but I think it would be very interesting!
At 13.15 the narrator reminds of a foundry making canons in the Byzantine empire, a Hungarian named Orban. Guess who is the Prime Minister of Hungary in 2021,more than six hundred years after the empire's destruction, VIKTOR ORBAN.
I don't think the prime minister would be a descendant of him, though Orbán isn't a very common surname
13:43. In Ottoman cadastral records, Orban didn't die during siege and had large amount of estates (probably thanks to his service) in Constantinople.
thx!
Nice channel very interesting 🤝👑
But poor Manuel, Ioannes and Konstantinos were really great men, despite the unbeatable difficulties. Heroes.
Manuel was good but Messed up a lot thou. The failures in Sicily and Anatolia are his to bear.
@Tyler Ellis I believe that he means Manuel II Palaiologos.
@@pseudomonas03 Tbh Manuel Palaiologos didn’t achieve anything thou. He lost all the gains he got from the treaty of Galliopoli. A Good man and active emperor but his poor decision to side with the wrong claimant in 1422 nulled his whole reign.
I chuckled when Orban "blew up" and fell apart. At least he didn't get hit by a falling gladius.
@@elemperadordemexico emperor Constantine XI and his high rank officers foreseen that Urban or Orban would be offering his services to Mehmet becouse of lack of money, but the emperor refused a proposal to kill him before it can do so, the emperor didnt want to have the blood of a possible innocent man to his conscience!
@@petros311 Everything I have read tells me Constantine XI was a good man, and this just reinforces this thought. I laughed my ass off to see that Orban didn't even get to spend his pay for screwing the Byzantines. And yes, I know that they were doomed nonetheless, but I have always hated that cannon-making douche.
@@rossbach451 me too! unfortunatly and some others played a dark role aswell, in Mehmet camp there was some hungarian ambassador, he advised them to use the big cannon better, he advice them to shoot the big stones in a triangle pattern so the weakened walls collapse more easily! it was always suprise me as seemingly neutral personalities come forth and help Mehmet in varius instances!
@@petros311 As Hungarian it's interesting to hear, I knew about Orban, but not the ambassadors. They must have been some kind of outcasts or exiles as the Ottomans were are our archenemies. Three years after the fall of Constantinople Mehmed was already at Belgrade(1456)
@@silasz5553 Unfortunately always there were traitors in Hungarian politics
Much love for this channel ❤
Please make a series on the Mithridatic Wars. 🙂
There are videos from K&G already. I also recommend Pyrrus, between him and Mithridates I cannot tell who was the best absolute madman.
It never declined in my heart
5:10 - 5:14
So, an alligator is the equivalent of a duck ??🤪
Hello Luis
Love The vid
Hi Kings and General could you please continue from the battle of Lepanto of the ottomon battle series, if you have continued it can I know what battle to watch next thanks
Tzakones ,where Lakonian Spartan ns who moved on the Mountain s of Peloponnese during the AvaroSlav invasions of Greeece,and permanent members of Byzantine Tagmata..other Laconians who moved on Mountains where famous Maniots remained free from Latin Rulers and later Freee from Ottoman rule since Mani never fall 5o the Ottomans, p.s was not only those 500 Catalans mercenary s in Byzantine Army later we will have the Story of Catalan Company recruit by Catalan ,Aragonese ,and Sicilian s who defeat the Frank's of Duchy of Athens ,and create the Catalan Duchy of Athens include small part of Central Greece ,for 80 years ,80 years was lasted the reconnection reconqest by Byzantine s of southern Spain from Visigots by Belissarius ,funny think that in Catalonia was the highest Colonization of Greeks in Iberian Peninsula the Ancient times even was not the only ly one there 20 Greek settlement including 3 Big Greek cities , and more or less about the same in the rest of Spain
Indeed for this reason, the Tzakones's dialect is considered the last remaining Doric Dialect.
What I have always loved of the Byzantines is the fact that despite all they kept fighting until the end. It’s something that I admire and in my little I try to replicate it in my life
@@joek600 With the fall of Constantinople comes also the end of the middle ages !!!
They fought themselves to the bitter end more so as well lol
Please do a video next on the reigns of Justinian the Great Heraclius and the 3 Komnenos emperors Alexios John and Manuel
KIngs and Generals, Please! Great video! I always watch every one of your videos, NEVER to miss one from like button. But pleaseeee, give us the name of the soundtrack of the opening of the video. Thanks :D
A vidio about ottoman army please
A lot of the weaponry is described as western style. Implying that the Byzantines adopted western hardware. But the Byzantines being the inheritors of the eastern Roman empire were more technologically advanced and were exposed to more forms of weapons and armor coming from the far east than the west. How are we not certain that the flow of novel military tech that developed in the west in the early middle ages didn't come from Constantinople? Norman kite shields, crossbows, etc.
The lack of firearms being employed by the Byzantines I think has an easier explanation in that it was due to the fact that Constantinople by the time of it's final siege was just a bankrupt city state and not because of lack of fire arms know-how. They were the only ones with freaking flamethrowers in the middle ages! (Greek fire).
Remember, once Constantinople (Eastern Rome) finally falls to the Turks, it's knowledge flees to Italy and kick-starts the Renaissance, which is not just about art but also technology (think Leonardo Da Vinci).
It is true and economy is also another reason why the Byzantines did not buy Cannons.
@@demetriusstiakkogiannakes1326 by the end for sure, they were reduced to the small spit of land surrounding Constantinople, they were surrounded by the Turks on all sides in Europe and Anatolia ( they basically conquered their core territory) and the emperor's we're reduced to begging for aide from the Venetians, Genoese, Catalans, etc (who all took advantage of the Byzantine's weakness as well). When Constantinople finally fell, the writing had been on the wall for some time already.
Byzantyne elite troops armor in 12 th century are scale armor or lamella, it s not good as chain mail of the West, you can see the battle of Iconium of Federic Babarosa in 3rd Crusader. Gemany troops defeat the Seljuk, blow away all the Turk army on the way to Jerusalem, that Byzantyne tried and never succed. Greek fire was used by Muslim in the sea war with Crusader but did not effect. Greek fire or the myth of the knowlege from Byzantyne help the West just a myth of old knowlegde of the history. The university of Paris or Oxford... was found in the West in 11th century.
Kite shield probably had Byzantine origin actually. (Edit: I just also remembered that the crossbow had an ancient Greek equivalent known as "gastraphetes" but I'm not sure of the western European crossbow genealogy and if it could in any way be descended from ancient Greek prototypes)
@@jadenpham8020 Nah I think I remember reading a crusader account about John II using "greek fire" against the Crusader camp as well as muslims to great effect (well phychologically at least it seems it would typically shatter enemy morale when used skillfully, and probably won at least a few naval battles for the empire against the Muslims and Rus)
What about the upcoming episode of Nikephoros phokas's Eastern campaign?
The cannon explosions do need explanation. The crews back then were using contaminated gunpowder -- and the contaminant was sodium nitrate. Unlike potassium nitrate, sodium nitrate is the natural, common form, AND it's hydroscopic. That is, it just sucks water clean out of the air -- almost as intensely as calcium chloride -- the chemical still shipped with drug tablets so commonly today.
When any moist gunpowder with a hefty percentage of sodium nitrated is let to dry out -- it cracks -- leaving big seams. This is why the cannons explode. Each crack in the powder causes an intense acceleration of combustion beyond expectation. This is why a cannon that previously showed no troubles goes kaboom.
It took quite a while for the experts to discover that all sodium nitrate (NaNO3) must be 'cured' with potash. (KOH) -- so that you end up with KNO3 and NaOH. Due to their difference in solubility in water, hot and cold, this shift is easily done. (KNO3 is commonly known as salt-peter because of its biological action.) Test samples evidence purity by color when burnt. Potassium burns very pink. Sodium is yellowish-white. So, if the nitrate is emitting lots of pink, it needs more potash. Excess potash is inert during ignition, so there's no harm in it. You can have fun yourself making potash out of banana peels.
It will amuse you to note that modern chemistry was established by Lavoisier while and because he was in charge of making gunpowder for Louis XVI.
Yup. That's how things got rolling. He discovered the law of definite proportions -- and then everything followed....
High stakes
Let's not forget how the West turned it's back on the Byzantine Empire and indeed, played significant part in its downfall.
Ahh. The 4th Crusade.
It was due to the ageless rivalry between the two churches- Catholics (West) and Orthodox (East). The Pope, not wanting any leftover trace of Christian Orthodox in Europe he deceived Emperor Constantine by promising him troops to protect Constantinople...but help never came from the West. This was the Pope's great chance to let Orthodox get eliminated once and for all.
@@nielsatoyab6065 sad how the 4th crusade destroyed almost all cultural architecture and cultural treasure of the empire.
@John Hathorne Greeks were GOING to "lose", to WHO? To Ottomans? Or to the combination of Ottoman-Egyptian alliance? Shouldn't Greeks seek for alliances too, pathetic kid? Residual is your mentality, and your knowledge obviously.
As for the demographic comment, that compares warfare results of early 1800s, with a modern population census (Istanbul population boom begun since 1920s), it's totally silly as expected by a guy like you, John Hathorne.
Never forget what happened in 1204.
Good vid.
I love your videos a lot. Please make a video on Sikh Empire especially focussing on Maharaja Ranjit Singh and one of the greatest generals Hari Singh Nalwa.
I know its a criminal oversimplification, but I always point to the fall of Constantinople as the date that marks the end of the ancient world and the beginning of the modern world, especially in a military sense, but also in a societal one.
Isn't it a common view tho? At least if you define the limit as the end of yhe medieval. But as way of life, feudalism lingers for a few centuries more, truly scientific worldview also came a lot later, and so does cultural views on human rights or nationalism. So I disagree.
I prefer 1492, has corny has it it, but not only because of Colombus. In 1492 the newly united crown of Spain finally destroyed the last Muslim state in western Europe, finally liberating some funds to be allocated to Colombus, but most importantly ending a century long conflict that resulted in the creation of a new unified state that would lead the colonization of the new world, under the premise of the first voyage of Colombus they sponsored that same year. The war of Granada was in a way also the first large scale gunpowder campaign funded by a state to have been made, before the Italian wars like often claimed. But has always clear dates are a bit dumb to have, it doesn't work like that in reality.
@@theghosthero6173 1453 was the motivation for 1492, since the fall of Constantinople cut Europe from the spice trade, which is what inflated enough demand to launch exploration for new routes.
@@lukepensabene6086 not really. Portugal had already visited Nigeria by the 1440's looking to circumvent the Aragonese and Italian monopoly on western mediterranean trade. The mamluks were the ones through which most trade flowed and they were in an alliance of exclusivity with the Venetian. Aragon was busy strengthening it's foothold on Italy and the South of Spain for the rest of the period. Really only the Genoese got the short end of the stick, they were the ones that largely lost their lucrative black sea trade and missed out on the mamluk trade. With Portugal and Aragon opposing them in the western mediterranean, some Genoese like Colombus, were indeed seeking alternatives. So in a way yes 1453 was what pushed Colombus to try and reach Asia, but it's far from the only fact at all, the others are equally as important. Also, he had to wait the ten years of the Granada wars before being allowed to set sail so the date of 1492 is very important regarding Colombus.
@@theghosthero6173 1492 was definitely another revolutionary time. I think its a little American-centric though. But my argument is pretty Roman and Eurocentric I guess. It wasn't the first time that guns were used to win a war, but its significant in that the last remnants of the worlds of classical Greece and Rome were finally removed from the world stage, and by this brand new weapons technology
And now the exarchate of Ravenna 💪🏻
Perfect video but I knew a lot already
Nice piece of specific knoledge. Thank You. Bizantium should not anymore be the forgotten kingdom.
I can't understand why they failed. I mean Alexander the Great only had Greece and Macedon and he recruited more than 50,000 Greek men, real warriors, unbreakable, tough as nails. And he steamrolled the whole Achaemenid Empire. Byzantine Emperors had a lot more population and a lot more gold at their disposal and all they could get was levies and foreign mercenaries. What happened to the Greek fighting prowess?
Constantine XI is one of the bravest men to have ever lived ❤️
I hope you guys will make a video of him, along with John III ❤️
His brothers on the other hand...
@@month32 oh man.
John VIII was decent, but he spent a several month-long hunting spree in Florence instead of doing anything productive.
Demetrios was a piece of crap.
Thomas and Theodore were ok, but were nothing compared to Constantine XI.
Tbh, if someone like him ruled in the early 1300s, the Ottomans would’ve never had the chance to expand.
Plz continue the the great Alexander series plz
Man i am waiting for bulgarian ottoman wars please next make one on that😁😁
It was really sad that in the later years Byzantine were only a client state/vassal of the rising Ottoman Empire
@پیاده نظام خان it was dead before the ottomans what ?!?!
@@user-ln8eh5nq3q by every possible measure, the Empire died in 1204, killed by Christians. Even further, after 1261 and the reconquest of Constantinople, the Serbs and Bulgars and independent Greek princes tore apart the European provinces before the Ottomans even crossed the Hellespont, in 1356.
It was impoverished, and none of its neighbors wanted to allow it to regain its strength, so they kept attacking. No European Christian was much fond of the idea of any Imperial resurgence, but even then, it was too decayed to stand on its own. Byzantine artistic expression had moved to a new and more solid home among the Slavs and Venetians. Even Orthodox Christianity had migrated its center of gravity and focus to Russia.
That's not an empire, it's a relic.
It is absolutely true that the Ottomans did not kill the Empire. It was already well and truly dead, and you can't kill a dead empire. At least the Ottoman Empire got a few centuries of its own Imperial glory and cultural achievement, before it too decayed and fell.
@پیاده نظام خان they managed to take back Constantinople ( the empire of nicaea ) and they had defeated Seljuks and latins thanks to good emperors such as Theodore laskaris John vatatzes and Michael palaiologos for me they had many chances untill the end of the 13th century to gain their lost power
@@TheSamuraijim87 the laskaris dynasty and Michael palaiologos as l said brought some stability and managed to regain some territories and Constantinople itself by 1261 and defend successfully their lands . now for me the situation got bad with the rise of andronikos palaiologos to the throne by the end of the 13th century . He make some critical mistakes such as the abolishment of the navy , the Catalan company by his biggest mistake was the blind of the general alexios philafropinos one of the last good generals that the empire had he defeated many times the Turkish beyliks and managed to gain the southwestern Asia minor so with the remove of alexios andronikos hired the Catalan company with proved catastrophic for the byzantines
@@user-ln8eh5nq3q Calling Michael Palaiologos or the Laskarids bringers of stability is at best, genuinely wishful. The Empire was gone, reduced to treading water in the crisis of the Mongol Invasions, and the constant strife in Europe.
While I don't disagree that he was a ruthless and capable leader, he was still largely a ruler who could do nothing but play catch up. Moreover, he had to sacrifice his own position among his people to do so, imposing tyrannies to maintain his church unions.
And to maintain his position in Europe, Michael was constantly losing ground in Asia, as much from his own unpopularity among the Greeks, who revered the Laskarids, as from Turks.
The Laskarids brought little to no stability either, as they were simply too poor and too beset by enemies to continue to call themselves a genuine empire.
Nor did either dynasty manage to do much in the way of successful defense of their lands, where they faced as much opposition from Greeks as from Slavic neighbours as from foreigners.
Even before Alexios Philanthropenos was blinded, even before Michael VIII was dead, the Beyliks were already consuming the Anatolian lands. This is well attested. And if such a general was not sufficiently impressed by the Empire's power to remain loyal, what good is he?
It was an empire of incessant catching up and reacting. It wasn't a real empire anymore.