why are there little to no portraits of the most recent byzantine emperors, while there are a bunch of portraits of contemporary western rulers ?

do a video about khalid ibn walid stat padding. all his numbers are fake and made up like all of islamic history

No it wasn't. Next

Too be fair when Voltaire made that quote the HRE was at it’s weakest. He was making an observation about its (then) present state not summermizing it’s entire existence.

-Not Roman: No continuation with the Roman Empire and Germans are not of Roman descent. -Not Holy: The Pope has no authority to crown Emperors. -But it was an Empire, as scuffed as it's feudal elective system was. The only continuation of Rome was the Byzantine Empire which lasted 1000 more years but fell after the Catholic crusaders sacked Constantinople and brought the renaissance (Byzantine art/philosophy) back with them to the fallen west.

I will never acknowledge those barbarous Germanic tribes as Roman

Man Antony should've gone for 1v1 he's veteran of Ceasar's campaign just like the rest of the legion, he easily win against Octavian

Im really interested in the Early Republic.. because A) we have so little information about what it was really like. B) what made Rome grow from a city to a regional super power? Why was this city different from all the rest?

The bureaucracy quote by Cicero would not make sense of real since there wasn’t much bureaucracy in his day. I would not say that it became much of a feature in Rome until dominate and more associated with Byzantine government

Thank you. I did not know that Catherine had released Serbia to Austria. That fact fills in a few gaps in our historical understanding of how the events of 1914 had turned so disastrous.

Do the Bassus family! And anicii!!

is it surprising to find that those who defeated Romans, actually doesn't like Romans?🤣

Byzantine history is a whole thousand years after the roman empire fundamentally changed

What I will do is going back in time an propose to Military service for men and women, women can be just profesional archers ,so in this way we increase the number of military active soldiers... secondly : I will create a espionage agency like the KGB, so we can be prepare ahead of time to face war....As Putin said in New Year´s speech.... with tears on his cheeks.... Nobody is coming to help us..... We need to wake up smell the coffee..... East Roman Empire was the envie of many countries.....so they were not interested to help us ....

Arabs portray the Romans and Persians as morally bad in their "historical" films Meanwhile the Arabs during the first caliphates:👹☠️😈

What about Britons, why they are not in the map of possibilities _?

صراحة هذا الفيديو جعلني ابحث عن هذا الموضوع و هو ارتباط العرب بالامبراطورية الرومانية و فوجئت ان لنا نحن العرب ارتباطأ بها اكثر من البرطانيين و الفرنسيين و الالمان و دول شمال اوروبا حيث ان معظم حكام روما القديمة اما كانوا رومان او اغريق او من منطقة البلقان او تركيا الحالية او بلاد الشام و شمال افريقا من الامازيغ و الفينيقيين ومناطق شرق اسبانيا

Who's son in law converted to Christianity? 5:47

I made my comment before even getting into the article. He was a member of the Enlightenment, and as such was profoundly misogynistic. A deceitful bucketful, as worthwhile as Rousseau.

You can lay this issue at thr feet of the great English bucket of shit, Edward Gibbon.

From Roman Catholic Mexican , the Romans won. They passed the torch to Spain , Spain united all the barbarian tribes in the Americas under 1 religion Roman Catholicism , 1 Romance language Spanish, and 1 single Empire , The Spanish Empire from Mexico to Argentina to Puerto Rico in this land we pray to God and and believe in the blood of Jesucristo and our mothers are named Maria and our fathers Jose and our sons are Juanes and Julianes and Felipes and Santiagos , we go to Church on Christmas Eve and we shut down the nation when the Pope is present. We have beautiful cathedrals and named our cities Monterrey , Guadalajara , Veracruz, San Juan , San Salvador , San Francisco and Our Lady of Los Angeles and Santa Fe. And as Mexican I will never respect our banana republic politicians more than I respect King Phillip or any other Roman Emperor. GLORIA A ROMA Y PLVS ULTRA , HAY MAS. 🇲🇽 🇪🇸 🇨🇺 🇵🇷 🇵🇪 🇨🇱 🇦🇷 🇨🇴 🇵🇾 🇺🇾 🇧🇴 🇻🇪 🇬🇹 🇸🇻 🇳🇮 🇵🇦 🇩🇴 🇪🇨 ✝️ 🕊️ 👑 🩸

Am an arab i see romans as a mogjty empire at one point but was still with terrable morals

James Purefoy was perfect in that role.. acting was fantastic. Favorite character hands down.

Bad. 😂

Fact !when the verse who’s writen the Romans has already known, is like me saying Israel will win the 6 day war ! Upsss

stupid. 10 years means they didnt care.

Constantinopol is the second Rome, Moscow is the third and the last

western iii doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as x doukas, i suspect you put him unfairly low just to get him out of the way quicker

What I like personally like which isn't necessarily Rome, but the latinii tribes. I am very but very curious on their true origins, from 10th c. BC until the conquest of the Latin league by Rome (which in itself a Latin city) by 338 BC. But of course I am also curious about the true King's and origins of Roma between 753 - 509 BC. Unfortunately my ancestors were as good as my fellow Dacopaths are to create fake origin theories.😂

Wait... Dovahatty!?

Nah, Byzantium was far too orientalized.

In the end the sick man of europe lived 5 years longer than the Russian Empire.

Real Rome: Sweet fits, much more interesting, not Christian. Now Mama Mia. Byzantium: Christianity, ugly fashion, not very impressive. Now: Mohamet Jihad.

yes Allah knows the future

Would have been great for Russia to have Turkey

@RomabooRambkings Russia has a long record of falsifying the past. One of the first examples is the Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible. The document was nominally a chronicle of the Tsardom of Muscovy from ancient times to the present, but with “corrections” given the current political situation. The chronicle’s latest volume, known as the “synodal list,” described Ivan the Terrible’s reign. However, the document was regularly amended depending on whom the czar currently liked or disliked among his entourage. To some extent, we could draw a parallel with the Soviet government’s attitudes toward modern history in the 1930s and 1950s. For instance, some historians believe that the boyar revolt of 1533 was partly fictional because only the “synodal list” mentioned it. The struggle for the throne following Vasili III’s death did indeed occur, and Elena Glinskaya neutralized Vasili III’s brother Dmitry Ivanovich, prince Dmitrovsky, with the help of the boyars. But she was the czar’s widow trying to keep her position. However, this is a trifle compared with what happened next. Russia began taking shape as an imperial entity under czar Peter I. His reign focused on modernizing the backward political system, concentrating power in the hands of the “autocrat,” and strengthening his position in the international arena. Over time, this rule began to be identified with the “original myth” of russia’s “greatness” following a long period of “the times of trouble” and turbulent consolidation of the Tsardom of Muscovy during the 17th century. That is one of the examples of russian historical mythmaking. In 1701, Peter I issued a decree to confiscate written monuments of the enslaved peoples. It mainly concerned the empire’s European part. Restricting access to historical monuments gives a free hand to use manipulation. For instance, the Radziwill Chronicle that includes the “Tale of Bygone Years” was made up like that. It is stylistically different from the monuments of the period in question. Several czars and palace coups later, the Russian Empire was headed by Sophie Auguste Friederike von Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg, better known as Catherine II. During her reign, the Russian Empire expanded its borders by waging numerous wars. It captured Crimea and almost the entire southern part of Ukraine, parts of modern Georgia and Latvia, and divided the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth several times. The expansion became the driving force behind systemic historical revisionism. Catherine understood history not just as a science about the past. For her, it was also an important political tool that could influence the fate of many future generations. According to her state secretary Aleksandr Khrapovitsky, Catherine spent a lot of time researching and discussing various historical documents to create a comprehensive history of the russian empire. Catherine II clearly explained her inner motivation in a letter she wrote to Grigory Potemkin in May 1790: “I have maintained Russia’s glamor my whole life. Therefore, it is not surprising that I cannot tolerate in silence or conceal the insults and offenses inflicted on it, as we have done so far for the sake of a momentary caution requiring it. Yet by suppressing such feelings of inner bitterness very often, we intensify them even more.” In her letter to Friedrich Grimm in March 1783, Catherine noted that she divided russian history up into “five epochs”: “1. [russia] emerging; 2. divided; 3. oppressed; 4. victorious; 5. prosperous.” Such periodization was inspired by August Ludwig von Schlözer’s works (a historian known as a supporter of the “Norman theory of the origin of Rus”). According to Catherine, the so-called “second era” covered the period from the first half of the ninth century to the second half of the twelfth century. This period was of particular conceptual interest to Catherine. In a letter to Friedrich Grimm, she even outlined her plan for generalizing this period: revolutionary events; consistent changes in the order of things; of population and finances; contracts and documents; examples of intentions or neglect by rulers and consequences; remarks on how it could have been prevented; examples of courage and other outstanding virtues; features of various defects and their effects. Later that year, on December 4, 1783, Catherine II issued a decree to establish a “commission for making notes about ancient history, mostly of russia” chaired by Count Andrei Shuvalov. The commission was to realize Catherine’s vision of history.

Voltaire’s a fool, especially for ragging on CHARLES THE FOURTH, KING OF BOHEMIA AND HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR, HAD A LONG AND SUCCESSFUL REIGN. THE EMPIRE HE RULED FROM PRAGUE EXPANDED, AND HIS SUBJECTS LIVED IN PEACE AND PROSPERITY. When the Emperor died, the whole Empire mourned. More than 7,000 people accompanied him on his last procession… The heir to the throne of the flourishing empire was Charles's son, Wenceslas the fourth, whose father had prepared him for this moment all his life. But Wenceslaus did NOT take after his father. He neglected affairs of state for more... frivolous pursuits.

That is because those people are idiots. I can name a lot of Roman Emperors. Why do they feature videos of people being clueless about basic facts like if asked name a country and they say Africa, it is to demonstrate the average person is a clueless twit, let the expert class make the real decisions and hold the real power. Yet, there are plenty of very smart average common people who would answer this question and spit out multiple Roman Emperors. Ask the average Muslim in the a Majority Muslim nation "Name some Pre-Islamic leaders of Persia? Can they do it? Name some Pre-Islamic Pharaohs of pre-Islamic Egypt? Ask them questions like that or even the pre-Islamic leaders of Arab tribes and states. They won't be able to do it most likely. You would make the average Muslim look like an idiot.

Hopefully that cunt ESOTERICA sees this. He pretends to be a historian who isn't afraid of the controversial and macabre, yet made a post about how unforgivable the crusades were. Truly, rituals praising Satan are far too morally complex to be judged as evil, but one case of national conflict driven by religion is obviously unforgivable. How much more tone deaf can one be?

You have to watch the best arab historical series ever : omar series

Seldjukies flag

And even at this time, Roma was just a shadow of Alba Longa. The irony I find as a Romanian, is that the Latinii had a semi-nomadic pastoralist culture when they settled down in Latium and until they adopted a more sofiticated culture like that of the Graecii and Etruscii. Their descendants (us Romanians), after their fall became again semi-nomadic pastoralists, very poetic if you ask me.

If he called the lion’s Jew.

Voltaire slagging off the Eastern Romans as being incapable of creating Greek fire is like certain modern "historians" claim the ancient Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids so it must have been aliens. 🙄

I'm only a couple of minutes in but the intro is beautiful!

The mid Republican era, the Macedonian Dynasty, the late Republic, the Khomenian Dynasty and the Crusades, and the Crisis of the Third Century are my favorite periods of Roman history to study.

Wanted to point out that it never looked like a double headed eagle from ancient times it always looks like some kind of rooster or a phoenix

Well for starters, it is known by an entirely WRONG name. It's Eastern Roman Empire not Byzantine. And after the fall of the west part, Roman Empire. Also, Christianity and everything that brought in the culture. "Don't do anything or else you burn in hell" basically that.

Thank you for pronouncing classical Latin correctly. My only 'nit pick' as you would say is that the 'ae' diphthong was almost certainly pronounced as "EE" and likely not as "AY". To know for sure we need a time machine, but most experts agree, Caesar would very likely have sounded like "KEEZAR" to our modern ears.

We Arabs know many things about the Romans that they themselves do not know.