The History of Byzantine Empire 286-1453: Every Year

[@Ulrich3]

This video does not display the vassal countries of the Empire, the latter being displayed as Byzantine territory. And Sardinia fell completely in 1014 and not 1041. 13:30 Huge mistake it's 1100-1132 and not 1000-1032 !! Thank you for your comments, it's nice to see these efforts rewarded, if you have any questions about the choices I made, don't hesitate to let me know, I'll take the time to answer them!

[@superm530]

It seems that Sardinia control is contested: from the bizantine loss of siciliy to the xi century, it isnt know what exactly happened in the island and how the local kingdoms (iudicates) appeared.

[@ilcampigiano5502]

The Byzantine dominion over Sardinia slowly died out after the Arab conquest of Sicily had made communications between Constantinople and Cagliari difficult and the Sardinian nobles gained more and more power, ending up under the control of the Maritime Republic of Pisa

[@AlexanderLehmann-c6z]

Italy in the 600 & 700 ist also not correct.

[@KILLER.KNIGHT]

What about the Aghlabid Dynasty?

[@robbillington1982]

@@ilcampigiano5502Italy was never sundered from the empire until the Lombards either. Odoacer was a deputy of the emperor Julius Nepos until 480 and then the deputy of Zeno until overcome by Theodoric who was a Goth by birth but moreover a Roman patrician. Indeed Justinian reconquered Italy and destroyed the Ostrogoths but Italy did not fall until the taking of Ravenna in 751. Even then the south was still Roman.

[@dewd9327]

The Empire that refused to die

[@hirohito5399]

The most underrated empire sadly, and one of the most incredible part of the roman history.

[@selahattinkaskc8668]

more like overrated

[@illegalproductconsumer702]

@@selahattinkaskc8668 fr

[@hirohito5399]

@@selahattinkaskc8668 wrong

[@schechter01]

@@selahattinkaskc8668 Byzantium was certainly more culturally refined than the empire that replaced it.

[@theodlt5980]

@@selahattinkaskc8668 how is it overrated ? In modern culture, Eastern Rome is nowere.

[@SkY-hv4tw]

enough to make a grown man cry

[@xxxxxxxx2224]

🤣🤣🤣🤦🤦🤦🤦

[@Geoguy678]

​@@xxxxxxxx2224 what's so funny?

[@sumerianfarmer5363]

@@Geoguy678 Don't worry about him. It's just a butthurt turk/arab

[@Dutchmapper]

@@xxxxxxxx2224another case of fatherless

[@shareem1779]

Damn this is masterpiece, the amount of details is crazy you deserve more! You earn a sub!

[@yellowcanary1294]

This video was a joy to watch, congratulations! Also the themes you chosen were impressive, especially in the Justinian's part. However, I believe the reconquest of Basil II was worthy of mentioning, wish you'd do it but again, I appreciate your work.

[@thathistoryfam794]

5:32 tragedy 😭😭

[@OwnM3Z0]

W rashidun

[@thathistoryfam794]

@@OwnM3Z0no

[@OwnM3Z0]

@@thathistoryfam794 seethe

[@gamingdeeznuts]

@@OwnM3Z0both of the romans and the caliphate fell to ottoman hands, so basically they both died to turks

[@OwnM3Z0]

@@gamingdeeznuts We don't look at history like that, ethnicity isn't the highlight for us as muslims, Turks or Arabs, It Doesn't matter So long as they're fair governors which most turks were not 💀

[@Profligateslayer]

Way under appreciated. Great video

[@Ulrich3]

Thank you !

[@mecanimetales4647]

Very impressive! For the short amount of subscribers you have, you do actually very nice content. I really liked it, and I hope you maintain this quality for your next videos :3

[@georgios_5342]

Great video! Amazing work! I just wish the city names were a little larger.

[@Ulrich3]

Thanks a lot ! At least we won't see the spelling mistakes 👀 Either I put a lot of cities but wrote small, or a few but basically, it's true that sometimes it's not very readable I should have opted for the second option!

[@CrusaderMapper]

There’s a mistake, Maximian Hercules ruled as Augustus of the West; it was Diocletian who ruled as Augustus of the East.

[@bpsalami9864]

4:22, 12:02, 14:02 The Empire at it's strongest.

[@theodlt5980]

The empire was stronger richer and more populated during Anastasius reign than during Justinian reign.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

​@@theodlt5980 true, the reconquest of the West was unnecessary.

[@ilect1690]

@@Michael_the_Drunkard i disagree, the plague was mostly responsible for the economjc decline, tho i do think everything after north africa probably wasn't the most economical thing to do

[@minimal8187]

From 4:22 going to 5:53 😮

[@TheIronChancellor]

​@@minimal8187too many wars but still many victories and enormous land for medieval times

[@peterthesneakybastar]

It’d be really interesting see a kind of Greco Roman timeline starting from the Minoans to hittites and Mycenaeans to the Greek colonies/empires to Romans to Byzantines, etc.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

The Romans to Byzantines timeline is not a thing. Since there are no such things like Byzantine outside Western historiography.

[@temirbug_han]

Minoans and Hittites ≠ Greco Roman

[@averagecomicsenjoyer6545]

Greco roman culture is only the medieval rome as eastern roman empire wasnt greek empire its just roman empire. Greeks influenced romans, romans influenced greeks. Minoan period, mycenean period, dark ages/dorians period, archaic period, classical period, hellenistic period are way before when romans occupy greece. When you say greco roman history its like romans are greeks ofc they are not greeks speak hellenic romans speak latin. Roman republic is way different than greeks democracy. It may similiar but not same. But if you mean greek + roman history its ancient greeks first starting with cycladians in cycladic islands and mioans in crete in early bronze age they are like even 1000 years more ancient that alexander is ancient to us. Roman history begins in BC 753. Greeks stay under romans then ottomans for like 2000 years

[@adamelghalmi9771]

but the byzantines were not roman, even if they were romanized. they were hellenic

[@theodeleon]

​@@adamelghalmi9771 still roman bruh

[@imperiiitalica6278]

Very nice! I love the quality of your map

[@Eazy-ERyder]

This was very good. You should have more subscribers

[@ivanpopov1016]

Losing Anatolia in 1072... That hurt

[@Michaelthegrape7680]

This Timelapse just shows how terrible the Angelos Dynasty was. The Byzantines at the whole coast of Anatolia, Bulgaria, and more but then the Angelos Dynasty came along and then the whole thing fractured, and Constantinople was sacked as a result. In short: There is a reason why the part of the video that’s named “decline” is lead by 1 dynasty

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

Turks indeed had a decisive role in triggering historical major events like the Migration Period, Crusades, Age of Discovery as well as ending the Middle Ages with the conquest of Constantinople, fall of the Eastern Roman Empire.

[@Geoguy678]

Yes, "age of discovery" was started by turks

[@KaantheKaan]

Great video, but you flipped the western and eastern emperors of the tetrarchy hahah

[@dannsilver138]

Great work! The Byzantine Empire was really a stronghold against barbarians for 1000 years.

[@genovayork2468]

Barbarians? No.

[@WarriorofChrist612]

@@genovayork2468Barbarians? Yes.

[@genovayork2468]

@@WarriorofChrist612 Who?

[@WarriorofChrist612]

@@genovayork2468 G*rms, T*rks, many others.

[@ТАДАМ-ю4ж]

It was one vs all, last shield for Europe

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

" In its final centuries , the Byzantine Empire was also called " Romania . " Remnants of this Roman heritage are still evident in such terms as " Rum " and " Rumeli . Georgius, Philippides, M. and Macarius, 1980. The fall of the Byzantine empire. Amherst, MA: Univ. of Massachusetts Pr., p.2.

[@linuxcuanthony493]

Vay reis sen de mi buradaydın yaw

[@RamonWalther]

Hello! Very good video. Suggestions: There were some major happenings which destroyed the empire, on some you gave details on other not (the plaque for example or the islam empire). For me, it would been interessting to who the fought. But this would maybe been to much. Anyway, great video, i enjoyed it a lot. And sorry for my english.

[@Ulrich3]

Thanks ! It's a very good idea, I could perhaps, later necessarily, make a remix that zooms and extends the timelapse month by month on the big theaters like the one between the Caliphate and the Empire in 633 it would bring a lot of detail . Don't worry as a Frenchman I can't criticize your English

[@NicCageCDXX]

18:50, the final major offensive campaign of the empire, future emperor Constantine Palaiologos leads a campaign to push imperial holdings back to the ancient Hexamilion Wall, forcing the Turks to send 60,000 soldiers to restore control of the region due to Constatine's notable gains. A great emperor, just deal an unwinnable hand.

[@rubo009]

Where can i read about this expedition? I didnt find any info

[@arioarashdadkhahaseman1889]

No matter how mighty, magnificent and strong you are; tragedy is our destination in the end and it's inevitable.

[@TheIronChancellor]

Indeed my friend every single empire fell what matters is the legacy you leave behind and the Byzantines left a legacy that is unmatched

[@aggelos20-83]

Could you please do next an alternate history of the Roman Empire, also great video.

[@Ulrich3]

Yes I have already started thinking about it, I have some good ideas but it will take time

[@lukewestbrooke6248]

how these great people fight so hard even when dying.

[@Matthew_080]

Very good video

[@Carlo-zk2cy]

Emperor Anastasius I is very underrated. The imperial treasury during his reign ensured that the empire will continue to thrive for centuries to come.

[@sofiagiamali2567]

I just wanted to say that in the Nikaia Era there werent only trebizond and nikaia it was anither two despotates the Minstra wich is close to sparta and in over the years conquered all of Morea and when Byzantium reunited it joined that as how epirus did

[@Sarnet42349]

Respect from 🇹🇷 ☦️✝️

[@k0stant1n0sr19]

What respect now you live at the old greek territories

[@Sarnet42349]

@@k0stant1n0sr19 I respect the glorious history of a great empire. Your profile is very contradictory, one cannot be Orthodox and a communist.

[@k0stant1n0sr19]

@@Sarnet42349 i am not communist but i like the soviet union and ideology of united countries and i haven't something better to add for profile icon

[@M.5543.F]

@@k0stant1n0sr19Bro likes gulags😂

[@averagecomicsenjoyer6545]

​@@k0stant1n0sr19Medieval Roman Empire is not a Greek empire. Now you just changed your pp to macedonian empire and medieval roman empire flag at its center

[@fernhausluv44]

This is (I'm sure accidental) Julian the Apostate, Jovian and Valentinian erasure - they should all be right between Constantius II and Valens; also incorrect too because Julian conquered back large swathes of Gallic and Germanic land in the Constantius II map I'm seeing - great work on the timeline despite the oversight.

[@Georgios1821]

Very well done

[@daspotato895]

What happened to Emperor Zeno? You show Leo II as reigning for 17 years after his death in 491, even though he died in 474.

[@fafjaafh]

Zeno get damnatio memoriae xD.

[@macedoniaoneandindivisible8127]

The Eastern Augustus was Diocletian from 286 until May 305. It never was Maximian, who was Augustus of the West instead.

[@majorianus8055]

John is the most underrated Roman Emperor, he is the only one who doesn't have a major failure in his reign.

[@Ulrich3]

It's true that he's one of the few not to have suffered major defeats or to have lost territory, and when you're the emperor of Byzantium, that's a feat!

[@disnureas5668]

Which John?

[@Ulrich3]

@@disnureas5668 John the 1st i think

[@disnureas5668]

John Tzimiskes , I thought John Kommenos

[@theodlt5980]

@@disnureas5668 the first three John were all great emperors

[@حيثلاانت]

The empire fall in 1204 was so devastating

[@infinitehistory809]

How did u made it that the year stays at its place and not moves a bit?

[@Ulrich3]

I have use Window's video editor who was arleady install when i buy my pc

[@infinitehistory809]

@@Ulrich3 alr thank you:D

[@OrthoKarter]

Our history(greek history) is so beautiful. God bless greece.

[@genovayork2468]

This is East Roman history.

[@minimal8187]

​@@genovayork2468Greece is the successor state of this empire

[@genovayork2468]

@@minimal8187 No lmao.

[@minimal8187]

@@genovayork2468 why not

[@genovayork2468]

@@minimal8187 Greece gained independence from Ottomania. The successor of Byzantium was Moraea.

[@imperator7828]

Manuel Komnenos had also vassalized croatia hungary, up to galych and volhynia

[@Ulrich3]

From what I understood he annexed Dalmatia which was Croatian and part of Croatia, for Hungary he tried to put a personal union (a kind of vassalization) against which the Hungarians rebelled, and Manuel wiped out their armies but he didn't formally succeed and if he did it didn't last more than a few months or the video is year by year. Then I use French sources which may be incomplete. For Galicia I have not seen anything like that, in any case personally.

[@DCCrisisclips]

@@Ulrich3 with galicia I think he is referring to this video "The Reign of Manuel I: Every Month (1143-1180)" I would post a link but youtube will hide it. Also nice video, also I will send you a message later when I have time about the last roman state in Mani which survived till 1821.

[@Ulrich3]

@@DCCrisisclips Yes I completely forgot the maniots, on the other hand I confirm that only Dalmatia, Bosnia and Serbia as well as Sirmium were under Byzantine domination, Manuel concluded alliances with the princes of Galicia for an anti-Hungarian alliance but did not never vassalized neither Hungary nor Galicia, and for Italy he attempted a requonquest which we see in the video which ended in failure, and I do not consider the Monferat as Byzantine and this despite the presence of a Byzantine dynasty on its throne.

[@imperator7828]

@@Ulrich3 Bela III of Hungary had grown up in Constantinople , and was Manuel's adopted son and heir. Even though Bela (or Alexios as he was known in Byzantium) lost that position when Manuel's son was born, he still remained in Byzantium, fought for the Byzantines against his brother and remained an Orthodox Roman Patrician. When his brother died, it was with Roman Troops and with Manuel's permission that he took the throne of hungary (as a Roman patrician) and gave a promise and oath to Manuel to serve the Empire's interests. He even sent troops in the campaign that ended with Myriokephalon. So when you have a situation where a legally Roman Patrician is on the throne of Hungary, culturally more Greek than Hungarian , who also promised and swore an oath to Manuel, thats a vassal.

[@Ulrich3]

@@imperator7828 I saw it all while making the video. It's debatable, I don't see how having a 'non-aggression pact' and a Byzantine sympathizer who even though grew up in Constantinople, makes him a vassal, he's moreover an ally, he doesn't pay no tribe at least not that I know of, and is not a march of the Empire, it is not in Personal Union and is not a beneficiary. Not to mention that I haven't read/seen anything that showed that the Byzantines considered the Hungarians to be vassals. No for me it's just allies. I mean Napoleon when he married the Austrian princess he had the sympathy of Vienna plus a huge containgent of about 50,000 men and yet Austria is on the maps not considered a vassal but an ally of the French Empire the same for Denmark at the time.

[@1_rma]

great video and quality, but when did the E.R.E ever vassalized Kinda?

[@1_rma]

you forgot about the Salihids too, and they were annexed by the Ghassanids, still good quality.

[@Ulrich3]

" The Kindite assaults on the Byzantine frontier in the Levant prompted the empire to make an agreement with the Kinda under al-Harith (whom they called Arethas) to act as their confederates, guarding the imperial frontier. [1] At some point during the reign of the Sasanian king Kavad I ( r. 498-531), al-Harith captured the Lakhmid capital of al-Hira in Iraq. His reign there was short-lived, but during this time he adopted the Iranian religion of Mazdakism. After his brief dominance over al-Hira, he returned to the fold of the Byzantines. He obtained a phylarchate in Palestine, but after a conflict with his governor, he fled into the desert. There, in 528, he was killed by King Lakhmid al-Mundhir III or the Banu Kalb tribe. [1] About two years after al-Harith's death, the Byzantines, seeking to build an alliance against the Sassanids, sent the envoys Julian and Nonossus to enlist Ethiopia, Himyar and the Kinda. Through Byzantine diplomacy, the Kindite king of Najd, Qays, probably the son of Salama ibn al-Harith, agreed to enter Byzantine service and leave his territory under the rule of his brothers Yazid and Amr. Qays traveled to the Byzantine capital Constantinople and subsequently received a command in Palestine. [1] Al-Harith had divided the command of the Ma'add between four of his sons, Hujr, Ma'di-Karib, Shurahbil and Salama. Rivalries erupted between the brothers, resulting in the deaths of Shurahbil and Hujr, before al-Harith's death. The Kindite monarchy was therefore left in a state of disorder.[1] " The Kinda and the Ghassanids had a federated role while the Salhids were more vassals more under Byzantine influence and as I specified in the description: "This video does not display the vassal countries of the Empire, the latter being displayed as Byzantine territory."

[@Ulrich3]

After all that is more than debatable, but to make a video you have to make choices

[@1_rma]

@@Ulrich3 I never knew that, I’dput a lighter color than a vassal to depict it.

[@Valceck]

Brothers Romanoi ❤️

[@السوري-ج4ذ]

When Syria fell, Heraclius wept and said goodbye Syria 😢

[@tsurumi87]

And Welcome Arabia 🇸🇦🇸🇦🏴🇸🇦🏴🇸🇦🇸🇦🕋🗣️🔥

[@compatriot852]

Heraclius dropping the ball harder than Honorius did in the West

[@fredsoh4027]

Not really, he reconquered all their lost territory and finally defeated the Sassanids on their own turf and took their capital a feat no previous roman emperor had ever done. It was just such unfortunate timing that it was right after decades of hard fighting that the arab caliphate chose to appear and bring down the two weakened empires. He did literally the best you could've done in that situation, and he made sure the empire wasnt completely engulfed and survived for another 800 years

[@thathistoryfam794]

You know nothing

[@BarryAllen__1A23]

Honorius was a completely incompetent ruler with no redeemable achievement whatsoever

[@Nonamearisto]

4:14 While the Lombards complicated matters, the Roman empire was nearly back to life by then. If not for the 26 year Persian war and then the Arab attack before the empire could recover, the ERE would have had more than enough manpower to wipe out the Lombardic kingdom in Italy, just as the Franks would in real life. Then they'd be free to take down the unstable Visigothic kingdom, possibly ahead of when it actually fell in (or around) 711 AD. From there, they could probably seize southern Gaul to link it up with Spain, and maybe even take some of central Gaul too. I doubt a complete restoration of every lost province was possible, but they could get be most of the romance-speaking areas, and with Italy, the Iberian peninsula, and parts of Gaul brought back, the empire would have more than enough money and manpower to keep the Franks out, secure the Balkans, and deal with whatever threats came from the east. As for the Magyars, if Otto could beat them, so could the ERE. The Turks would have been expelled, if they even dared attack at all against a much stronger ERE. They were nearly kicked out even after Manzikert. The Mongols were really the only problem they'd face in that timeline, and even then, I can see them holding them off. They might lose a few battles, be forced to retreat to forts and walled cities for a time, find a general who can handle them, and beat them (or at least exhaust them) as Aetius did to the Huns, or the Lithuanians did to the Mongols at the Battle of Blue Waters. It would be a scary few decades, but they'd survive. The Mongols couldn't even take down Poland or Hungary.

[@majorianus8055]

Totally agree. I always state that the real bane of the Empire is how they were exhausted by the Persian Wars, and defeated by the Arabs. If Muhammad didn't spread his heresy then the Roman Empire could have bounced back and recoqnuer Italy stabilised Africa and the Balkans by the end of 600s, and complete the reconquest of Spain in the 700s. Who knows maybe in the 800s or 900s Southern France can be reconquered. By then then it's only a matter of time until the Imperial borders will be restored. Britain needs not be taken.

[@omaroragb]

@@majorianus8055 bro what hersy cirstians you are adopting hersy that the jews curropted

[@Flutterzancelight]

Epirus wasn't a byzantium state but it survives until 1479.

[@umutucar2146]

İt was a crusader state.

[@Flutterzancelight]

@@umutucar2146 , yes, under Tocco

[@DCCrisisclips]

​@@Flutterzancelight Either way he forgot about the Maniot state that survived till 1821 when it joined with the Greek revolutionaries to form the first Messenian senate

[@cernel5799]

12:50 That escalated quickly. Anyway, the mapping itself is far from perfect. I'm looking in particular to the late Komnenian times, in which the Roman (or Byzantine) empire is here shown having way (WAY!) too much land in Anatolia and also a bit too much in Hungary. Also, it appears that something that I guess is meant to represent (incorrectly, as it should happen somewhere around Psidian Antioch, which is given well within the empire, instead) the offensive which led to the battle of Myriokephalon happens in 1171-2, whereas I believe it happened in 1176. If the "Roum" sultanate was really that small in 1139 (13:58), one would wonder how didn't the Romans just easily stomp it and reclaim all Anatolia. Please don't take these critics too negatively: I can see doing a mapping like this being very challenging and time consuming.

[@cernel5799]

Unless maybe the "Roum" sultanate falls under your "vassal countries being displayed as Byzantine territory" concept, in which case I would say that the empire has non enough land (but should lose that land by the start of the offensive which led to the battle of Myriokephalon).

[@Ulrich3]

I would say on the contrary that the Empire had more territory than I showed, the crusaders took keasarea and (Ikonium may not be sure) which I did not include in the video, the Byzantines stopped at Anycra (Ankara) which they did not conquer and I did not represent it, I could have put the border a little further west towards Sivrihisar but there we are talking about an error of some peripheral villages of which we doesn't know much about the overlordships. At the time the Sultanate of Roum was divided between the Sultanate itself and the Danishmend Sultanate but also with the sultanates and Beylicats Saltukid, Divrigi and some other smaller, the crusader have destroyed and have been destroyed many Army of the Sultanate while the Empire looked at them and recovered cities so yes it is exhausted and within reach of the Byzantines, all the cities shown in Anatolia have been conquered, after there is always a margin of error of a few villages. Besides, I didn't give any Hungarian territory to the Byzantines, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't take the criticism badly, on the contrary I had forgotten the Roman kingdom of Altava whose existence I was told in the comments, which is interesting.

[@cernel5799]

@@Ulrich3I don't know what source you are using (and chances are that I don't have it unless it is freely available over the internet), and myself I'm not using anyone in particular: I'm going with some general recollections of the situation there at the time, so now I will have briefly to make some internet searches (likely mostly using Wikipedia) to double check that what I recall may be correct. Regarding "keasarea", are you actually talking about the city currently called as Kayseri? You have to be more precise because (unfortunately) there are a few cities called Caesarea. Assuming we are talking about current Kayseri, that is most certainly a city well within what the Romans (Byzantines) never reincorporated (I don't remember whether or not it may have been briefly taken by crusaders on the way.). I've briefly checked Wikipedia, and it says that the city was not under Roman control from 1074 onwards. Regarding Iconium, it was briefly taken by "Barbarossa" but never by the Romans (Byzantines) after it fell to the Seljuks (and this is what I recall and just double-checked in Wikipedia). Your map shows a Roman-Turkish frontline which seems to be about where Iconium is or even having Iconium slightly within Roman territory (It's not clear, so you'll tell me what's the case here.), and I would say that this is (anyhow) way too generous for the Romans in the (according to your map) whole period between 1019 and 1203 (and your map also displays some sort of brief Roman occupation or invasion of the entire area south and east of lake Tuz in 1171 to 1172, and I've no idea of what that is supposed to represent: my guess is that is maybe a temporally and geographically misplaced campaign which actually happened in 1176 and ended in Myriokephalon, but this is just a guess of mine). I think we can be pretty sure of this because "Barbarossa", during his crusade, marched past Turkish-controlled Philomelion to take Iconium from the Turks and, instead, Philomelion and this entire hostile land through which "Barbarossa" fought his way is given as Roman (Byzantine) in your map. If your map would be correct, "Barbarossa" would have fought his famous battle of Iconium at most just right after exiting Roman (Byzantine) territory, and this was certainly not the case: it fought it after having penetrated into Turkish territory for at least three weeks. Pasting from Wikipedia: "The Battle of Iconium (sometimes referred as the Battle of Konya) took place on May 18, 1190, during the Third Crusade, in the expedition of Frederick Barbarossa to the Holy Land. As a result, Iconium, the capital city of the Sultanate of Rûm under Kilij Arslan II, fell to the Imperial forces." Generally speaking, you seem to have an idea that the Komnenian restoration achieved a lot more than it did: actually, the vast majority of central Anatolia remained always under Turkish (mostly Roum Sultanate) control. For example, the territory around the Eğirdir and Beyşehir lakes was either on the frontline or under Turkish control (whereas you give it well within Roman borders), and the Battle of Myriokephalon happened either somewhere between this zone and Akşehir or between this zone and Iconium, all territory which must have been under Turkish control, which your map incorrectly assigns to the Romans (Byzantines). And your map actually goes way beyond that, even having the Roman (Byzantine) frontline on the western shores of lake Tuz. If I have to be more specific, I'm not sure, but I think that Juliopolis, Germa, Amorium, Nicopolis (Akroinon), Claudio-Seleucia, Psidian Antioch, Claudio-Caesarea and Philomelion were all cities which were always or for some time (I think always or almost always, but I'm not sure.) under Turkish control during the reign of Manuel, whereas your map says they are Roman during the whole period, but I cannot say so for sure and this would need to be researched individually if possible. Anyhow, what I'm saying is that I'm fairly certain you are being way too generous to the Romans (Byzantine) in guessing the frontline between them and the Turks during the period in question (which, of course, cannot be known for certain, so some guessing is in order). More to the north (as you are mentioning Ankara), I think the frontline is more realistic, but I've the feeling that you are still giving a bit too much to the Romans (Byzantines). I suggest you check the ownership of the cities of Germa, Juliopolis and Antoniopolis, all of which I believe are between Roman (Byzantine) territory and Ankara, whereas you are giving them all to the Romans in the XII century from 1139 onwards. Going even more to the north of Ankara, there is the city of Saframpolis, which I also believe was in Turkish hands. I'm not sure about Kastamonu, which you show as Roman (Byzantine), but I think that was also Turkish for at least a lot (and maybe all) of the XII century, during which you are showing it as Roman-controlled from 1139 onwards. What I'm trying to say is that I cannot tell you exactly what you are getting wrong and where the frotline should actually be, but I've the feeling (just vaguely based on what I remember) that (big-picture wise) the Romans (Byzantine) are shown having way too much of Anatolia in the XII century from 1139 onwards in your map. This also causes the problem that, apparently, in 1204 the Romans (Byzantines) instantly lose to the Turks a lot of territory in Anatolia, with really no explanation for that (Compare 15:02 for the year 1203 and 15:06 for the year 1204! At least one of the two has to be vastly wrong, and I believe it is the former.). Regarding the Hungarian territory, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "I didn't give any Hungarian territory to the Byzantines" because you certainly did. The Battle of Sirmium is rather famous: it happened in 1167 and resulted in the Romans (Byzantines) taking territory from the Kingdom of Hungary, and this is indeed what your map is showing in 1167 (This is not necessarily wrong, but it is indeed giving Hungarian territory to the Byzantines.). However, I only said "a bit too much", and I'm actually not sure about this because your map does not give a lot of referring points (It would help a lot if the Danube river would be drawn on the map.), so here I have to apologize and correct myself in that I should have written "and maybe also a bit too much in Hungary" instead of writing "and also a bit too much in Hungary". Feel free to disregard the Hungarian part of my comment, but, assuming you have the city of "Sirmium" in the right place, I would check if after 1167 the Roman territory indeed extended so much to the north-west-west of that city. Of course, Serbia and Bosnia were not really part of Romania (the Byzantine Empire) like that, but I've seen that you followed the principle of displaying vassal countries as controlled territory. I think your borders in Dalmatia are right. A last error I just noticed (and maybe was already reported) is that your dating is behind of a century from 1110 to 1131.

[@Ulrich3]

@@cernel5799 yes as I said the border in Anatolia is further west finally I didn't include no city let's say I was generous, for Ikonium I didn't want to and didn't include it in it but did when I drew the video I must have thought Ikonium in the wrong place since I learned how to better place cities on a map using layers. What to look for in this kind of video is the name of the cities, the more there are the more precise the video and the less there are the less precise it is, the rest will always be subject to debate. And for the video I used books from my university library. Wikipedia is not a precise source, it is good to have a general idea but beyond not. But there are plenty of things that I would do differently if I could, that's for sure.

[@DCCrisisclips]

@@Ulrich3 Did you know that theirs sources that state that Manuel vassalised Gallica/Halych and Hungary was some sort of vassal but byzantines used other terms such as son to donate vassalage

[@solarflea4115]

Boys cried at 476 Men cried at 1453 Legends cried at 1204

[@1snowball]

O triste fim do Império Romano

[@hoboplay6703]

Nothing can delete Greek debt.

[@DimitrisTziounis]

Today every european country has generally a high debt, not just Greece. Can you mention at least one country that aims at deleting its debt literally after 10 or 20 or 30 years or so??? What is your country dude? Did your government ever make any statement saying that your national debt will be zero or very low after a defined period of time??? You will never hear such a thing even if you are German because in terms of modern economics, national debts are not created in order to be deleted entirely, not even in order to be paid for the most part. Just ask an economist and he will explain it to you.

[@saikrishnak8631]

you have put leo 2 instead of zeno

[@Ulrich3]

Literally 5 minutes after posting the video I saw a video that was about Zeno saying the same thing as you, I'm annoyed I still made it appear in 475 in the video

[@HsienKoMeiLingFormerYANG]

Can you make one about Vietnam?

[@thathistoryfam794]

All because of damn phocas

[@k0stant1n0sr19]

I am from greece and i still can't understand why byzantines hasn't so good military

[@KraNisOG]

Rome is eternal.

[@juliocesarfeitosa8438]

Ano 565: tudo voltaria a dar certo Ano 566: tudo deu errado.

[@ignaziomormando8990]

Boh c'è un errore nel titolo, questa è la storia dell'impero romano d'oriente

[@ΧαραλαμποςΟικονομου-η5θ]

Byzantine empire ☦🇬🇷

[@IstvanVicsai]

Its hystory falsification the real name of The empire was eastern roman empire not bizantin

[@Ulrich3]

It is not if you look at the chapter and the description, this term is debatable indeed but "Byzantine Empire" is a better title, that's only a question of coverage.

[@harrisonshone7769]

15:02 - Trigger warning!

[@thetroll1129]

The hardest throw in gaming history

[@TheSphee131]

You should make the title "The History of Byzantine Empire 286-1461 Every Year" for more views

[@Ulrich3]

I asked myself the question, I'll see in the coming days, maybe I'll actually do it, it's a good idea 👍

[@faisalalkhedhrawi7311]

1.5 speed would be a good idea.

[@Ulrich3]

Actually I didn't realize it during the editing but it's a bit slow, although in the end I accelerated a bit towards 1300

[@turan_kaya]

Eastern roman empire, not byzantine empire.

[@aransin167]

Inaccurate. The empire of Trebizond had periodical control over sinope even after they lost control of their holdings in northwestern Anatolia. Also Crimea is left out during the same time period.

[@Ulrich3]

Can you tell me where did you see that Trebizond still had Sinope after 1214-1215? (The city was taken over not even a few months in 1254 by trebizond except that its its not a mistake but simply the fact that the video goes from year to year.) Also yes the Empire of Trebizond still had Crimea which will even then become the Principality of Theodoros but the video is about the Byzantine Empire and I didn't bother to show it it's easier for me on my side , this is not the only 'forgotten', I did not put the Maniots, or Epirus which survives well after 1461.

[@gabormolnar2724]

Justinianus the last roman emperor.

[@theodlt5980]

Constantine XI*

[@gabormolnar2724]

@@theodlt5980 Technically yes, but Constantine XI never owned Italy. He was an insignificant ruler who even betrayed his faith to ask the Pope for help. The last truly ROMAN emperor was Justinian the Great.

[@theodlt5980]

@@gabormolnar2724 the last great ruler to rule the old city of rome is thus CONSTANTINE V Coronyme and the last to rule Italy was Empress Zoe.

[@SrJomba]

​@@gabormolnar2724owning Italy or being faithful to your religion aren't criteria by which a person is defined as Roman

[@ilkersenel9123]

Byzantine Empire is actually Roman Empire

[@ispeaku759]

The nation destroyed by its own court shenanigans

[@ГлебЖамальдинов]

Византийская империя💪

[@Klonen75]

I have a feeling that Europe and the west lost something magnificent with the fall of the Byzantium empire.

[@hakanmokan1483]

They are east rome not byzantion. Byzantion is a small district in New rome... Please don't use the unreal name. They did not call their country as byzantion. They called theirselves east rome...

[@Ulrich3]

As I have already said 1000 times yes East Rome or Rhomanion is the real name, now for branding reasons using the term Byzantine is better, I am the first to call Rome by its real name, unfortunately you have to know balance. I don't know why Byzantine annoys the community, the use of the term Byzantine only serves to represent this period of the Roman history, if you look at my chapters you will see that I put the right name.

[@hakanmokan1483]

@@Ulrich3 i have some idea why a lot of people use the term but the conversation contunie so long;-) i gave Info about that who used "Byzantion" term in first time; Hieronymus Wolf used Byzantion term in 1577 when he wrote a book. The book name is “Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ' but he gave info about east rome history in the book. Regards...

[@ziggytheassassin5835]

Having learned a lot about byzantine history the past few years, i have to say, they weren't this shining beacon of civilisation being threatened from foes on all sides. Post heraclius and the arab conquests, They were a decaying corpse of an empire ruined by the most toxic culture of court intrigue in all of history. They had all the resources and plenty of opportunities to reconquer and thrive, but the byzantine state was so resistant to getting anything done at all. Only basil the 2nd managed to make it function properly in those 600 years.

[@hopeundertheblacksun]

They had victories all around their frontiers in the Macedonian renaissance though. The empire from 950-1050,was far from decaying,it was largest and wealthiest European empire atm

[@ziggytheassassin5835]

@hopeundertheblacksun they took back antioch and gained some bits here and there, but compared to previous roman campaigns and other empires campaigns at the time its quite sad. An earlier rome would have used the opportunity of the collapse of the abbasids to retake the levant and even egypt. The byzantines retook a few cities, and that was it. They even did raiding campaigns further south which is just sad to see the "romans" stooping to that level.

[@hopeundertheblacksun]

@@ziggytheassassin5835 bruh. They conquered Crete,they conquered Bulgaria,vassalised Croatia,then campaigned in Syria and also conquered Armenia proper by 1025 AD. The Byzantine Empire also crushed the Kingdom of Hungary under Manuel I and secured many victories all around. You have to realise that no other empire in Europe was stacking so many Ws consequently lol. Even Rome itself got sacked by Saracens in the 9th century,the "Holy Roman Empire" was that powerless in Italy(the region where it claimed it legitimacy from).

[@hopeundertheblacksun]

@@ziggytheassassin5835 "earlier rome would have retaken Egypt"...? Yeah? Because they had more resources? Byzantium in the 10th century didn't even have 20% of the resources of the ancient empire

[@ziggytheassassin5835]

@hopeundertheblacksun half of that happened under basil II. I specifically said that only he was great enough to make the horrible byzantine system actually function properly for a time. And look at what happened after he died. It just went straight back to self destructive intrigue and decline.

[@emmalibecker5500]

522 Turcotte Station

[@epicgamerez1257]

5:22 battle of issus

[@epicgamerez1257]

"The Romans have been defeated in a nearby land. Yet following their defeat, they will triumph within three to nine years. The whole matter rests with Allah before and after victory. And on that day the believers will rejoice" Quran 30:2-4

[@epicgamerez1257]

Surah Ar-Rum was revealed in the year 615 and the battle of issus was 7 years after the surah was revealed

[@KilapnF]

El final es más triste que la Rosa de Guadalupe

[@gerddergaertner5071]

EU5 start date will be at min 17:20

[@faisalalkhedhrawi7311]

I guess you will have more subscribers if you make your channel less Eurocentric, human history is way more ancient than the European empires.

[@Ulrich3]

Maybe, but I make videos on subjects that interest me and rather than leaving them in my files, I post them but I have no real ambitions on youtube, and then Asia (except the Middle East) is a region that I know less and which is more difficult to do because the Empires are larger there. When the other continent I do not want to do anything and be inaccurate. Because good luck finding written sources on Native Americans or Africans.

[@Lorenzo00494]

Constantine XI, the last standing❤🫡🫡🫡

[@zoomzoomcat]

this video is not accurate julian and jovian is missing julian is one of the best emperor of rome

[@Ulrich3]

Jovian governed for 7 months and the video is year by year, and he ruled the Roman Empire not just the eastern part., and Julien was a usurper and under Julien the Empire was relatively unified, but this is not a video on "the Roman Empire" but on "the Roman Empire From the East" and his title of Caesar puts him in the hierarchy below the Augustus, I only show the two Augustus here. It's a choice not an error, the video is not innacurate at this level anyway.

[@doctorgolgi1934]

Not Byzentine Eastern Roman Empire

[@tsurumi87]

still finished lol

[@larrynivren8139]

West Rome died about 400 after Christ.... EAST ROME made it for over 1000 years longer.... without EAST ROME we all would be muslims.....

[@Levant_Edits]

UMAYYAD CALIPHATE CREATED THE DARK AGE 💪Syria and Arabia

[@junesilvermanb2979]

God Save The Emperor

[@КоляКорвяков]

🇬🇷Greek love❤️

[@superm530]

They never had complete control of Crimea, only the south coast. the north was always nomadic.

[@Ulrich3]

The Kingdom of the Bosphorus was a Roman vassal until the arrival of the Huns, which extended throughout the Crimea and even beyond, if that is what you are referring to.

[@superm530]

@@Ulrich3 Yes, but they oly had control of th CITIES IN THE COAST . the interior was controlled by nomads, sarmatians, scytians. Even the wikipedia map, reveals the limited control: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporan_Kingdom#/media/File:Bosporan_Kingdom_growth_map-en.svg

[@Ulrich3]

@@superm530 2 things : The first is that a map is an estimate, we know that X or X cities are controlled by such an empire, we conclude that the area around it also has it, while not necessarily, all of this is to say that my map is like that of wikipedia are incorrect. The second is this, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/PonticKingdom.png/1280px-PonticKingdom.png This was the second image and as you can see wikipedia contradicts itself. "even wikipedia" shows that the bosphorus had an influence, an occupation dare I advance of the crimea as a whole. Not to mention that the sources on the kingdom of the Bosphorus are very weak, especially towards the end of this one.

[@gabrielpavan6395]

the saddest video I've ever seen 😥

[@susanpower-q5q]

You are wrong to begin video at year 286 AD with start of pagan Diocletian reign Begin at Augustus under whom Christ was born Byzantine Empire was Sacred Christian Empire after Constantine the Great and ruled the world for Christ both in East Empire till 1453 and West till 476 AD and revived by Charlemagne till 1918 November 11 at eleventh hour Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven was their sacred and divine motto to bring Pax Romana to whole globe which Augustus did from 27 BC as symbolic of and under whom the TRUE ETERNAL PRINCE OF PEACE was born

[@Ulrich3]

The Empire is organized into two autonomous political entities in reality from 286, some have chosen the date of 395 or that of 330 but it will come to the same thing.

[@susanpower-q5q]

@@Ulrich3 Thank you for reply /This morning discovered Joseph Martin Mccabe on Librivox you or your viewers may be interested in since very few videos on wives and mothers of Byzantine Emperors are on youtube this discovery this morning is very thrilling for me these Librivox audios on Byzantine Empresses I never knew existed and he begins in 476 AD He also wrote Roman Empresses UPTO 476 AD where he divides East from West and also on Librivox soon maybe Judith Herrin/British and Lynda Garland /Australia both contemporary will also be on Librivox as they do not have any video about their biographies but why do you think nothing by IAN Hughes is on youtube ? author of Stilicho 2010? and half dozen more on same era

[@Don_J]

😭😭😭, God why?

[@fredsoh4027]

I mean realistically as sad as it was, it helped progress the world forward, the fall of Constantinople and the subsequent classical knowledge that suddenly flooded italy fleeing the turks sparked the renaissance, and the ottomans blocking the silk road was what led to the discovery of the new world. Not saying these wouldnt have happened anyways, but they definitely sped things up. We could be fighting world war 1 still right now on an alternate timeline where the Byzantines held out longer or were never conquered.

[@xxxxxxxx2224]

Wtf?

[@hdufort]

1461!!!

[@catthegreat4977]

Justinian Macedonian 🇲🇰 Basil Macedonian 🇲🇰 and Justin Macedonian 🇲🇰 is the best

[@sofiamariapetrou2794]

Get a life you dont have History 😂😂😂

[@minimal8187]

You are bulgarian lol

[@ΧαραλαμποςΟικονομου-η5θ]

Macedonia is Greece 🇬🇷 😍 💙 ☦

[@ixXxnay]

gg wp

[@shia_pan_iranist]

Old Rivals , new friends 🇮🇷🤝🇬🇷🤜🇹🇷

[@S0nyToprano]

Imagine how amazing it would be to break an empire with a long and proud history up piece by piece. Like taking Egypt and knowing it will forever damage the empire and prevent it from soaring to its previous heights. It would feel like such a power play. Sacking its cities, looting its treasures, taking its beautiful women :)

[@Ulrich3]

POV you play a horde

[@enverpasha7084]

As an Arab it feels good to be on the winners side 🗿

[@thathistoryfam794]

@@enverpasha7084 okay and you proud of that?

[@enverpasha7084]

@@thathistoryfam794 yes obviously why?

[@FarooqKhanx-mk5jv]

Ottoman empire 🗿

[@sto_karfi842]

Greed...They could have taken the Dardanelles after Timur defeated the ottomans and man the castles,then call for a crusade and keep the ottoman forces divided,thus setting the plane for a crusader victory while having the ottomans strong in Anatolia as an ally to subdue the after crusade political entities of the balkans...Such a pity they chose a city(Thessalonica)to just sell it few years later...Zero insight.

[@joaomatheusalipiobusato6909]

God save the west

[@larrynivren8139]

and the EAST..... like ROMAN EMPIRE saved it for over 1000 years.... maybe YOU are a IMPERIAL ROMAN

[@TonyFontaine1988]

Music doesn't fit at all. First song sounds like we are going to find gold during the gold rush in America lol

[@PopeyeXC66]

The history of eastern roman empire*

[@ITALICVS]

Byzantine is the term by which historians refer to the medieval Byzantine civilization. It is neither a shame, nor incorrect, on the contrary it is recognized, widespread and used in all universities in the world.

[@histguy101]

@@ITALICVS In English, "Byzantine" has a negative connotation. Saying "Byzantine is a term used to refer to the medieval Byzantine civilization" doesn't make sense, You're using the same term for the label and description, thus giving no valuable information or explanation. That's like saying "Roman is the terms we use to refer to Roman civilization." Do you mean "Byzantine is a term used to refer to medieval Roman, or Greco-Roman, or Christian/East Roman civilization"? I mean, there were actual Byzantines, and they had their own unique and important history 667bc-195ad, or 330ad. There's no reason to just forget they existed. The first sentence by any teacher or professor on Byzantine studies will always be "Just so you know, even though we say Byzantine..." There's an obvious reason for this oft repeated caveat.

[@ITALICVS]

@@histguy101 I have no idea of ​​the nonsense you tell. The Byzantine term is by no means a pejorative term in English, it does not want to enhance a historical era. The term Byzantine is commonly used by every historian in the world, is present in every history book currently on the market, and is used in all universities, including English-speaking ones, to study Byzantine civilization. One piece of advice, wash your brain of propaganda.

[@V-man117]

Part of the Greek legacy 🇬🇷

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

" In its final centuries , the Byzantine Empire was also called " Romania . " Remnants of this Roman heritage are still evident in such terms as " Rum " and " Rumeli . Georgius, Philippides, M. and Macarius, 1980. The fall of the Byzantine empire. Amherst, MA: Univ. of Massachusetts Pr., p.2.

[@catthegreat4977]

Just Macedonia 🇲🇰

[@thathistoryfam794]

@@catthegreat4977 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@temirbug_han]

Byzantine=🇮🇹🇬🇷🇨🇾