Why did the Eastern Roman Empire survive so incredibly long?

🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
🤗 Join our Patreon community: / maiorianus
Or become an official Maiorianus member on KZbin: / maiorianus461
🤗 One-Time Donation?
- PayPal: paypal.me/Maio...
- Bitcoin: bc1qv4lsfsplvfecrrgvmfclhga28we7mvh9563xdj
🔗 Share the video with anyone who might be interested (it helps a ton!)
👍 Subscribe to our videos FOR FREE: www.youtube.co...
📚 My favorite novel about the late Roman Empire, "Julian" by Gore Vidal: amzn.to/3mZwOdJ
📚 BEST BOOKS ON ROMAN HISTORY: 📚
1. "History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages" by Ferdinand Gregorovius amzn.to/3yOvjEd
2. "Rome: Profile of a City, 312-1308" by Richard Krautheimer amzn.to/3yyChgp
3. "Rome: An Urban History from Antiquity to the Present" by Rabun Taylor amzn.to/322ClsZ
These are all excellent books if you are like me, absolutely fascinated by the transition of Rome from late antiquity to the early medieval period.
📚 One of our favorite books about the Fall of the Roman Empire, "The Fall of Rome" by Bryan Ward-Perkins: amzn.to/3FXeDNg
The wonderful background music is by Adrian von Ziegler: • Relaxing Roman Music -...
🎦 FILMING EQUIPMENT WE USE: 🎦
Webcam: amzn.to/3yFSFvu
Microphone: amzn.to/3e2ZFsW
Disclosures: Some links in the description are affiliate links which means that if you purchase something by clicking on one of them, your host Sebastian will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. In this way you will be supporting the channel to improve the video production quality at no extra cost to you.
📬 Contact us: [e-mail]
#Maiorianus

[@ATemplarIGuess]

"The City is fallen, and I am still alive" -Constantine XI Palaiologos moments before charging to his death The last Emperor of the Romans

[@Hypogeal-Foundation]

@David Alvarez eh 2 heirs (father and son or smt) survived and went to italy and the 2nd died pennyless

[@neymarmessironaldo5881]

Bullshit

[@Randombloke00]

​@user-hk2jn9nd2mwhilst it looked inevitable that constantinople would fall the ottomans offered him to surrender and they wouldnt change anything about the city and he could be the governer but he rejected stating it would be a non honorable end for such an honorable empire the ottomans when they got through sacked the city burnt houses and rebuilt the city from the ground up as a new capital one which was almost unrecognizable from the one a mere 100 years before

[@olekcholewa8171]

Went down like a true Roman

[@Hypogeal-Foundation]

​@@Randombloke00 "Rebuilt"

[@TetsuShima]

Western romans: "HOW THE HELL YOU SURVIVED MUCH MORE TIME THAN US!" Eastern Romans: "I don't know. Maybe the fact that our emperors preferred to rule and defend the country rather than feed birds, kill the best generals or put children with poetic names on the throne has something to do with it, don't you think?" Western Romans: "Oh..."

[@cat_city2009]

Justinian was pretty bad.

[@TetsuShima]

@@cat_city2009 He was not the pinnacle of human evolution, but to say that he was pretty bad is quite incorrect.

[@prestonjones1653]

Byzantium not having civil wars.😂😂😂

[@anon2427]

@@TetsuShima Justinian was a terrible leader and human being

[@praisethesun.praisedeussol6051]

@@prestonjones1653 they had civil war's tho

[@TetsuShima]

Theodosius II: *Creates a gigantic wall and a compilation of laws that would establish the 1000-year duration of the Empire and also an indelible Legacy in History* Horse: "And I took that personally..."

[@user-my4lf4bx6v]

Smh, is puzzling how his grandfather is deemed "great", while Theodosius II is many times forgotten Really underrated

[@Alitacyan]

@@user-my4lf4bx6v Only Christians still consider him "great."

[@Jykobe491]

Context pls? What do you mean by the horse?

[@TetsuShima]

@@Jykobe491 He was killed by a horse while trying to ride it

[@BlackJack-097]

4th Crusade: Really

[@lacintag5482]

I've read that if the Theodosian land walls weren't build so early, during the height of Eastern Roman wealth, then the later Romans wouldn't have been able to build them. Massive foresight by Anthemius, the most underrated person in Roman history.

[@lacintag5482]

Wait, never mind. That was a different Anthemius than the emperor. Which only makes him more underrated, I think.

[@magdalenajuanpedro8685]

Both Anthemius are good emperors

[@hdufort]

Themes. Cataphracts. Greek fire. Tightly walled capital city. Good navy.

[@leandrostsilis5730]

In the end tho, only the walls remained to stand against the Ottomans 😞

[@stewity1]

@@leandrostsilis5730 because someone forgot to lock a door

[@papahairy5315]

@@stewity1 and because the "protectors of Christianity" decided to sack a Christian city two centuries back

[@lordunhold5381]

The navy is the key part ... .. most nations ignored navys .... this was always the weaknees of the roman empire

[@hdufort]

@@lordunhold5381 The last naval battle of the Roman Empire was really a crushing defeat. Battle of Carthage in 461. After that the Romans were literally naked in front of any threat coming from the sea, and they couldn't mount any serious campaign in Africa, Spain, or any other spot in the Mediterranean.

[@99batran]

Funfact: Rome (city) started with a Romulus and ended with a Romulus. Constantinople started with a Constantine and ended with a Constantine.

[@Borderose]

Simple: Money. The East is richer than the West. Splitting the empire doomed the western half into fending for itself.

[@Imperium_Romanum]

Constantine XI himself defended Constantinople dying with the city and showing the Ottomans what a true Roman Emperor was. Edit: Also I swear the Eastern Romans could’ve survived until the 1700’s if it not were the Islamic Caliphate and the Turks

[@azeemskiies3631]

That edit is just like : i swear if u dont breathe u are gonna die

[@bobross9581]

Byzantium and The Sassanid/Neo-Persian Empire would both likely still be standing today in some form as the two longest lasting Empires in all of history had Islam not ravaged the lands and drove them to extinction

[@oooshafiqooo]

Ottomans: you can live like normal

[@user-rl8hf8kt1r]

@@bobross9581 Well the Muslims were biulding a empires for there slfes.....you can't plame them

[@jaimealvarez5666]

David Alvarez actually the crusaders reclaimed Jerusalem couple crusades later and defended eastern Roman Empire for quite some time. The eastern Roman Empire as well was in debt with the crusades and the king still had power because of them. He could not repay back the crusaders so they sacked Constantinople.

[@captainsensiblejr.]

You use the word "unimpregnable"means it's walls could be breached, you should have used "impregnable" means they could not be breached

[@ulicadluga]

You got it right in the beginning with "impregnable", but later you get it wrong with "unimpregnable". Your videos are still the BEST!

[@jfamo3552]

And there you go folks. You want to know why the UK got us powerful as it did? Because it's surrounded by water. It gave it an edge that Mainland Europe just didn't have. If you got across a channel just to invade that requires incredible amounts of resources.

[@ricvin2986]

Well we did get invaded and conquered by the Roman’s then Saxons then Norman’s. All the while the Vikings pillaged and settled to change bloodlines to this very day. After that our navy was what prevented the old enemies of France and Spain from invading, and later it was our air force that stopped the nazi’s from being able to think about crossing with a land army

[@rizwanuzzamanjyoti]

@David Alvarez no one can touch them because no country's navy is powerful enough to send an invasion, within 20-30 years global politics will change, global changes very fast we just don't feel it, here in my country people usually says "we will last forever"😀 dumbasses never reads history

[@hanneswiggenhorn2023]

​@@ricvin2986but the sea still meant that they focused a good part of their military effort on ship building, which definitely gave them an edge during most of its later history. I would say as soon as cannons on ships where a thing, a naval invasion has been nearly impossible

[@Ektor-yj4pu]

@ricvin2986 If the Germans had left the Soviets alone and concentrated all their forces to land in Britain and conquer it, they would have eventually succeeded even at the price of heavy losses.

[@dewayneweaver5782]

Greek fire and the best Navy in the Eastern Mediterranean might have had a little to do with it.

[@notsamhoward]

Liquid Fire was only really useful as a defensive weapon

[@zippyparakeet1074]

​@@notsamhowardso are walls and yet one is in the video while the other is not

[@notsamhoward]

@zippyparakeet1074 because liquid fire is a flashy weapon that gets people excited, when you actually sit down and examine its historical uses it was almost solely used defensively and had to be deployed perfectly under perfect conditions to work

[@dshock85]

And only fell because a back door was left unlocked.

[@HalduBouyaNono2]

Well, yes and no. Yes the final straw is because the door was unlocked. But it was because the Ottomans managed to find a way to block the sea supplying, forcing the Byzantines to go search for food by land during the night. After weeks to have to fight by days and go for food in enemy lines by night, it's understandable that exhausted Byzantines soldiers forget to lock the door when they returned. So yes, Constantinople has fallen because of an unlocked door, but it's in big part because the Ottomans made all of the circumstances to lead the Byzantines to make this kind of mistake

[@jokesonyou1253]

Just like Ulvalde

[@silverhawkscape2677]

@@HalduBouyaNono2 It's still hard to believe an Unlocked door lead to the end.

[@thegodfather4837]

Sadly the end was inevitable , the open door just hastened it up by a little

[@papahairy5315]

@@thegodfather4837 You do realize that the siege of Constantinople had almost failed right? The generals were on the verge of executing the Sultan. That little time the closed doors could've saved would have changed history as we know it.

[@lukebishop7288]

Him: “This proves that Constantinople was an impregnable fortress.” Me for some reason: “wait, does that mean the Ottoman Empire rap-“

[@ra_alf9467]

With their massive cannons those walls started to give birth to another empire

[@vidarodinson5246]

@@ra_alf9467 ayoo

[@ceasar7830]

@@ra_alf9467 so thos cannon wjere basically bbc ? And she couldn't handle it anymore? Thus got showered and bless with the seed of turks ?

[@brago_]

@@ceasar7830 wtf

[@stevenshoemaker8326]

Browns are really good at doing that in Europe…

[@cgyoboi]

The fact that the only thing that could break the defenses of Constantinople were literal cannons

[@billpolychronidis7805]

The city fell in 1204 by the Latins

[@cgyoboi]

@@billpolychronidis7805 and they retook it

[@dudi0_0]

A gate basically caused the fall of Constantinople. Ottoman morale was already low after the Genoese victory near the golden horn and the high casualties, the ottomans would've probably retreated if the gate defended by Genoese volunteers wasn't left open.

[@billpolychronidis7805]

@@dudi0_0 that's a myth in order to justify the defeat. Byzantine empire was not existent at that point. The city has fallen many times already.

[@ilgeorgioahp543]

The Byzantines had cannons. Just not big enough

[@os1941]

Based Byzantines

[@dillionthecrackhead3901]

Roman’s*

[@siyacer]

Based Ottomans

[@dillionthecrackhead3901]

@@siyacer they came after the fall of Constantinople

[@tarimkoysever]

@@dillionthecrackhead3901 No, ottomans were found in 1299 from a clan and they conquered formerly Constantinople now Istanbul in 1453. Their predecessor sultanate of rum also had captured a lot of eastern roman empire

[@os1941]

@@siyacer go home Türk boi

[@BillMcSwain]

I think it’s crazy that parts of those walls are still standing.

[@TheMattsem]

And then they invented cannons and everything has changed

[@kekkoinen]

The cannons weren't a major reason for the fall of the city, usually the time to reload was so long that the walls were repaired before the cannons could be fired again

[@thewildcardperson]

@@kekkoinen so wait I'm getting mixed stories did it fall because of cannons and bringing the wall down or did a guard leave the back door unlocked

[@kekkoinen]

@@thewildcardperson im pretty sure the gate being unlocked story was wrong as well but might be wrong about that

[@Borderose]

Caesar wears a turban.

[@IblewuponyourfaceIII]

Who is they? Orban cannons was made by Orban a Hungarian engineer.

[@shadowdeslaar]

Personally. I love Romes layout. Just not the stupidity put into it. The river itself should’ve been widened. The walls thicker, Deeper, taller. Fortresses near the city on each mountain. Fortresses in the alps. Everywhere. Almost a Alpine Legion City ! Rome itself could’ve made more roads. Better quality. Dedicate retired legionaries to Anti-raiding/ Bandit duty. Allowing them a less dangerous life style. end of the day life. Go home. Go to the fort. Have a property. Even if it small. Not all men wanted to farm. Own land. Many served until dead. If the west would’ve focused on Defensive, Internal problems. Arabia, North Africa, Briton and the surroundings, Germania, Dacia and thrace/ the Balkans, everything up to the Carpathian Mountains, parts of the steppes, Parthia, anyone nearby if desired, perhaps even parts of India. The Roman Empire could’ve very well conquered much much MUCH of the known world. If effort was tried. Keeping it is another story.

[@Adrian13235]

The reason the Roman empire dint conquer more is because by the time Trajan died the empire was just to valuable to be left undefended while fighting somewhere else like the parthians, they actually did try to conquer the Nubians and the Arabians but failed in there conquest as well, not to mention greedy senators, untrustworthy generals, and back stabbing governor's plus being raided all the time, Rome just wasn't in the position to make any grand conquest like it had in its prime and To just make a city of one million inhabitants have bigger walls, huge ass fortresses, and more roads and dedicating lands to legions takes money alot of money especially for a big city like Rome which the country usually dint even have because it was either going through a civil war or getting invaded by quarter million "barbarians". What your saying isn't completely wrong but to just say "if effort was tried" just seems a bit ignorant since Rome for the majority of it's existence was fighting a defensive war

[@redfishbluefish4973]

Constantinople: “impregnate me baby” 21 armies: “we can’t”

[@james5460]

That is half right - because Byzantium survived the fall of Constantinople in 1204. So it is NOT just geography and the Theodosian Walls - though they certainly helped a great deal.

[@renatacantore3684]

Thank you for your spectacular history lesson 👏🏼👏🏽🏆🌹🦋

[@hattorihaso2579]

1204 sack by christians never forget

[@Honeyless-Badger]

*By catholics

[@dudi0_0]

Top ten anime betrayals:

[@crimsonthumos3905]

​@@Honeyless-Badger Catholics who were excommunicated by the Pope for doing do. Let's so not leave out the part they were invited there by a Byzantine nobleman who wanted the throne for himself but then couldn't pay off the Catholic army he hired to do so

[@stevenshoemaker8326]

Only reason the Turks were able rise

[@hattorihaso2579]

@@stevenshoemaker8326 not only but one of em

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Excellent introducing about Remaining Eastern Rome Empire Capital so Long times independent & far from invading by Invaders ...thanks for sharing

[@iDeathMaximuMII]

I'm sorry my friend. But what the fuck did do say??? Lmao

[@lix6028]

Could you make a vid on varangian guard ?

[@velvetcroc9827]

Constantinople was awesome but the problem the Byzantines had was that Anatolia and all of the Balkans except Greece are very exposed as they can be attacked from many sides and their wide borders make them difficult to defend in depth. Italy on the other hand is a natural fortress. It can only be attacked from the north by land and it is narrow limiting the capability of invaders to roam around. That's why it was a strategic mistake on the part of the Romans to move parts of the imperial administration away from Italy during the tetrarchy.

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

Both cities were fortresses but constantinople had superior defense and was closer.to the riches of the east and Italy stopped being a fortress once Gaul was added

[@TurkicAtheist805]

Dont make informations from your ass

[@jamesmaybury7992]

"Unimpregnible" means Pregnable - able to be defeated. I think you mean Impregnible - not able to be defeated.

[@comradeblin256]

Who would have guessed the breaking point is partly caused by a big ass cannon that make defender's morale break faster than the walls itself!

[@gruntopolouski5919]

Wait. Istanbul is Constantinople-ople…

[@St.FaymiyunAl-Arabi]

If not for those greedy Latin crusaders attacking their own brethren,it would had continued to b bastion of Christianity but their greediness led to downfall of Eastern Roman Empire giving Mehmed advantage to overrun it

[@mattstakeontheancients7594]

The location, the walls, and lastly Greek fire. Also occasionally some very savy and militarily competent emperors like Basil II.

[@josephmanno4514]

You meant, of course, "impregnable." "Unimpregnable" would mean easily captured or taken. Fix that.

[@RezaXGWB]

Not to mention that constantinople fell after the Ottoman army decided to LIFT A WHOLE FUCKING SHIP to past the Golden Horn chain

[@marturisireaortodoxa2493]

The most important reason is that the city was protected by the Holy Virgin, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[@Abshir1it1is]

And then suddenly stopped protecting them when the Turks pulled up?

[@marturisireaortodoxa2493]

@@Abshir1it1is for a very good reason: before the fall of the city, the emperor and the patriarch signed a document of union with the heretic papacy, at Ferrara-Florence. Every single Orthodox faithful, this author included, believes that the betrayal of the faith by the Byzantine leadership was the cause of the May 29th, 1453 disaster, mirroring what happened to the biblical Israelites, who were forsaken by God every time they turned to idolatry

[@crimsonthumos3905]

​@@marturisireaortodoxa2493 lmfao. Okay, if you want to play the Orthobro logic, Byzantium's decline happened gradually after the Great Schism. The Council of Florence offered a chance for East to build a bridge where the West could have helped them. Instead, the Orthodox clergy seethed and refused the Council'a decision anyway. Therefore, they rejected the final chance God gave them and they lost their city for it

[@marturisireaortodoxa2493]

@@crimsonthumos3905 wrong, they lost the city because the clergy accepted "to build the bridge" with the heretical West, and that was God's punishment. Turns out that losing the city was for the best, we lost a city, but kept the correct faith, you kept your cities, but lost the Orthodoxy of faith, which is the only thing that matters. And it was the papist West that declined theologically after the Schism, becoming a heresy. Bysantium declined politically as a result of the backstabbing in 1204, when Crusaders sacked it, not because of the correct faith we kept. That's way nowadays the West has no touch with Christianity.

[@crimsonthumos3905]

@@marturisireaortodoxa2493 lmfao, you going to leave out the part where the Latins sacked Constantinople because they were literally invited by a Byzantine nobleman who offered them money put him in power... only he didnt pay them. Also the Pope excommunicated everyone involved But whatever Orthobro, whatever makes you feel better about your irrelevant backwater, copium denomination

[@HieuNguyen-pr8mj]

Crusaders in 1204: *Laugh in Latin*

[@getimpaled3460]

But then why didn't the Eastern Roman Empire fall in 1204 during the fourth Crusade when Conastantinople was captured by the crusaders

[@dominicadrean2160]

Don't you remember the Crusaders were invited into Constantinople and also they took them completely by surprise didn't expect them to attack them cuz their Emperor invited them there

[@hazzmati]

@@dominicadrean2160 also the emperor that was in the city fled with his army and basically let the city be captured. They had a good chance to repel the invaders

[@dewd9327]

Because the crusaders only succeeded in capturing a bit of land and they lacked the knowledge to maintain the advanced cities of the empire leading to their almost immediate collapse and the restoration of the empire.

[@subratadhar7698]

because the empire invited them inside the city and didn't pay the guards.

[@dewd9327]

@@subratadhar7698 more like a dimwitted usurper invited them in and died leaving a power vacuum and no treasury

[@MCorpReview]

It’s incredible that they outlived the ummayad Abbasid’s seljuks crusaders and Mongols 🤯🤯🤯

[@Adrian13235]

I mean if it could be considered Rome by this time

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

Even the religion of peace couldnt out peace Rome

[@comradekenobi6908]

@@ernestkhalimov1007 as a Muslim we never labelled ourselves the religion of peace tf, our first history is filled with wars and shi

[@ernestkhalimov1007]

@@comradekenobi6908 many imams in the USA right after the 9/11 attacks performed endless taqqiya saying that Islam is a religion of.peace so it became a meme that stuck.

[@comradekenobi6908]

@@ernestkhalimov1007 which imams? from which countries?

[@onetoxicboi6346]

They literally had to invent cannons to conquer it.

[@abumuslimal-asiani2066]

"well the reason is constantinople, its designed to be impenetrable..." Im genuinely laughs at this quote

[@PoliticizedGaming]

Hereditary Succession Destroys Every Empire

[@janegardener1662]

"impregnable" means "strong enough to resist or withstand attack; not to be taken by force, unconquerable" so "unimpregnable" means "able to be conquered"

[@oliround]

I love your content so much

[@healingandgrowth-infp4677]

I hate the word "Impregnable"

[@gideonmele1556]

In honesty, why?

[@khaias7822]

@@gideonmele1556 it implys that being able to get pregnant makes you weak.

[@gayvanquisher1948]

@@gideonmele1556 because it shows their dirty minds

[@aesir1ases64]

they watched too much got

[@astralguardoriginal]

​@@gideonmele1556yeah like wtf, go read a dictionary

[@Sphere723]

Not only in terms of foreign invasions, but also in Civil Wars. Constantinople's unique position, size, defensibility, and prosperity were key in maintaining centralization of the Byzantine state. If you wanted to be the "real" Emperor, you had to control Constantinople and once you controlled Constantinople, it was hard to oust you. So for all the famously complicated political intrigues of the Byzantine Palace, rarely was the actual empire fractured in the way the Western Empire often was. And when it was fractured between rivals, the situation didn't last for long.

[@KertPerteson]

Truth

[@NPC-Sisyphus]

Fyi you have a quiet high pitched noise that repeats every 2 seconds. It starts around the half way point of this vid. I’ve noticed it on some of your other vids too.

[@user-os2vu7nr6i]

"Constantinople survived the siege until 1453." The 4th Crusade in 1204: "Am I a joke to you?"

[@chancerichardson52]

Constantinople was a solid fortresse but don't leave out the fact that it WAS besieged and taken more than once. Solid but not impregnable.

[@_YouTube-User_]

It was conquered twice, the Latins were let in as allies but they backstabbed the Empire and killed the emperor making it a unique case and not linked to Constantineoples defences

[@crawhey]

Seeing these empire maps I always get confused by water vs land layout.

[@dudi0_0]

To be fair, out of the 24 times only 3 was successful.

[@huanquocmanh416]

Imagine they upgraded the walls to fit in massive cannons and a rail system to support it ☠

[@gemzboy3697]

The sack of 1204 had decimated the empire from which it never recovered. The empire was decaying since long and had become of skeletal shadow of it's former self by 1453. So it was just a symbolical survival.

[@mimzim7141]

Why did the crusadors take it so easily?

[@mimzim7141]

@David Alvarez interesting. But still strange when that city surmounted many formidable sieges and sea blockades before abd after that.

[@identifiesas65.wheresmyche95]

They learned from the west and didn't deficit spend to the point of ridiculousness for about 500 years so they maintained stability

[@gourmetgekko]

"Unimpregnable" actually means pregnable. The word you're looking for is impregnable.

[@godfather247]

The 1 word is GREEKS!

[@billpolychronidis7805]

Bro, Constantinople fell in 1204 by the 4th Crusade this dividing the empire into Latin puppets.

[@SneakGoblin7]

It took a giant cannon and a month to topple the city

[@Svensk7119]

English grammar note: you said 21 times it proved to be an unimpregnable fortress. That reverses the meaning, saying it was pregnable. You are saying it could attacked and taken. Unimpregnable is the opposite of impregnable. Perhaps you mixed unassailable with impregnable. By adding the un- prefixing this case you are saying it can be attacked. Unassailable and impregnable are synonyms.

[@AK-forty-seven]

The fall of the Roman Empire was one of the greatest tragedies for mankind. These turks parade their sacking of it as some honorable achievement, smh. Brother, your ancestors sent us all back for centuries.

[@valeriemacphail9180]

*impregnable NOT unimpregnable

[@mohamed-fb9vt]

The crusaders did penetrate the walls

[@Gizz101]

They did not they were let in

[@nolanolivier6791]

Unimpregnable..? I think you mean impregnable.

[@justinh514]

like your mom

[@nolanolivier6791]

@@justinh514 indeed. Or yours, to be sure; unless you were conceived of immaculate conception.

[@justinh514]

@@nolanolivier6791 ill trade you my mom for yours for a night? let's swing 🤠

[@4shizzal]

Ask Bron about that

[@lordhawke7]

‘Unimpregnable” is not a word.

[@TheRealForgetfulElephant]

Constantine was one of the best. Top 3

[@genovayork2468]

You want to say "impregnable", not "unimpregnable". "impregnable" means unconquerable. The Eastern Roman Empire being attacked all the time is an overexaggeration.

[@Nielsly]

Unimpregnable means pregnable, i.e. you can take it

[@MerkhVision]

No it doesn’t lol because impregnable by itself doesn’t mean it’s not pregnable, it means it IS pregnable, it’s related to “impregnate.” Unimpregnable means impossible to impregnate, the “unim” part is not a double negative!

[@dominicadrean2160]

Here's a question for you Byzantine fans since Russia declared itself to be the third room in history if it managed to get Constantinople back and maybe some of the land in Greece and Anatolia and if it was around today would you consider a restored Byzantine Empire at least in some form

[@iDeathMaximuMII]

Declaring yourself as a third Rome is alot like the Pope declaring a Germanic Frank as Roman Emperor

[@anon2427]

No I wouldn’t

[@13gan]

The idea of the 3rd Rome can trace itself back to Constantine the Great when he move the capital from Rome to Constantinople. It establish the precedence that Rome as an empire is not tied to the City of Rome. After the fall of Constantinople, there is basically no strong defender of the Orthordox church left aside than Russia, which is why they declare themselves as the 3rd Rome, the last line of defense of Othordoxy. The Greeks during their fight for independence did have the idea of Megali Idea, where they try to revive the part of border of the Grecian's Byzantine Empire which is the whole of modern day Greece and the western part of Anatolia along with the Pontic coast.

[@yoghurtmaster1688]

@@13gan thats second rome.... pretty sure the first city to claim third rome was tarnovo in the bulgarian empire during the time constantinople was occupied by the latins

[@13gan]

@@yoghurtmaster1688 Not quite. This is because after the fall of Constantinople to the Latins, there are 3 other successor state that tried to restore the Eastern Roman Empire. My comment is to illustrate how the idea of 3rd Rome come into being. Plus, with the historical animosity between the Bulgarian and the Eastern Romans (Remember Basil II Bulgaroctonus?), the claim of 3rd Rome is more likely an insult to the Romans (Byzantine) instead as a serious claim to be the new Rome. Either way, that claim is rendered null after the restoration of Eastern Roman Empire under the Palaiologos.

[@dustyk103]

The city would have withstood the Venetians in 1204 if they did not already have men inside to attack from within.

[@jasonpalacios1363]

Well that doesn't explain how the Crusaders successfully ransacked and took over Constantinople in 1204.

[@Gizz101]

They were let in

[@09tomforeman]

An unimpregnible fortress? 😂😂

[@MerkhVision]

Yeah, what’s so funny? Have u never heard that term before? Or do you just disagree with the assessment?

[@user-os2vu7nr6i]

They forgot the 4th crusade, perhaps.

[@09tomforeman]

@@MerkhVision a fortress that can’t be taken is impregnable, unimpregnable is a double negative. I suspect op isn’t a native English speaker so i can’t fault him for the mistake, I just found it funny

[@gtxo2104]

I mean the crusaders sacked the city

[@Albanian_crusader]

Constantinople,better emperors, better economy, better geography,more religiously stable and others

[@captainpelmenientertainment]

What if the eastern roman empire returned today

[@yanajohnson5776]

Because of the Bulgarians and Thracians.. Best wariors.

[@koteswar009]

So the Hagia Sophia mosque was built on church or synagogue after Muslims took the city

[@TheMasterhomaster]

Did they speak Latin in the eastern Roman Empire until the very end?

[@Abshir1it1is]

No. The predominant language of the Eastern Mediterranean was Greek well before the rise of Rome, throughout the reign of Rome, and after the fall of Western Rome. It’s the conquests of Alexander the Great that Hellenized the East and the Latin of Rome never supplanted that, but existed alongside it for a span.

[@chipz543]

*cough* sack of Constantinople (1204)

[@Gizz101]

Cough cough they were let in cough

[@hashirashfaq8164]

Ottomans: I'ma bout to end this man's whole career

[@JustAguy-qo8ge]

And then Mehmed the conqueror came

[@St.FaymiyunAl-Arabi]

Dude did nothing to already weakened Constantinople but inshaAlMasih it shall be recaptured fulfilling the prophecy of St.Paisios ❤️ 🙏 ☦️

[@aksmex2576]

Yeah defending 360 degrees is much than 90 degrees.

[@yammoto148]

So in other words the Eastern Roman Empire survived for so long by not being Roman at all.

[@rafjas9850]

Traditions , the law and intitutions : i'm joke to you?

[@yammoto148]

@@rafjas9850 Traditions? The only tradition that was kept was the title of Emperor, Laws were definitely different, they didn't even have a senate. Institutions? None of them had the same names or functions they didn't even have an arena for gladiator fights. They were east orthodox Christians not even Catholic Romans.

[@rafjas9850]

@@yammoto148 you're more of show person than man of facts, aren't you? The Rome wasn't about "classic " looking legions , the fights of gladiators or white like snow temples of completly not greek gods. Romans were practical people who were really good in adapting . The Eastern Roman /Byzantine Empire is very good evidence of it . In short , the number of Romans on east never was really numerous so they started to hellenize naturally , for example translating on greek many titles , ( but for example the sakelarios remaimed if I good remember) documents , artworks or law. Yep , their law was Roman one just in different language and some natural for their times corrections. The Constantinople had the Senate who was just in the same condition what their late roman original counterpart on west

[@yammoto148]

@@rafjas9850 Its not a matter of show, its a matter of mandates and driving motivations. The eastern Roman empire was about as much of an imitation as HRE. Up until 536 it was Roman but past that point most of what made it Roman either died out or was extorted from them by Venetians. Rome was about die hard motivation towards your country and assimilation of other cultures. What did the east assimilate or expand into? Nothing it was dependant on everyone around them for everything, going against the militaristic nature of Rome and attempted to become a commercial powerhouse only to be extorted and sacked left abandoned by the crutches it had relied on. Not to mention they weren't the ones doing the Hellenized translations, the Caliphates during the Islamic golden age ensured the safety of things like Homers epics. So don't credit them that. It couldn't even maintain the Eastern orthodoxy properly, and needed the Vatican to bail them out of bad situations with the crusades. So they weren't an empire. They also did not have the same laws or traditions. I am not talking the white marble temples, I am talking the severe Zelotry and aggression Rome had which it may embody in some of its rulers like Justinian, Alexios and the last Emperor. But by no means did it reflect anything Roman in its totality. It was a complete step down from the peaks Rome had and is only good for its endurance. China is still China despite going through more than 8 dynasty's, and having rulers and mandates and cultural changes of all types. How can the eastern Roman empire be called Roman without Rome. Sol Invictus is sadly lacking here.

[@rafjas9850]

@@yammoto148 How I see you doesn't understand what I tried to show you." The old , good Rome " wchich are you talking about was already dying in 3th century becauce of lack of new territories but also from having too much territories. It was economical and organizatinal thing you know. The Roman Spirit was in great rulers like Heraclius , Basil II , Alexios and Manuel Kommenos or the last true and worthy of Rome Emperor Constantine IX, but times just changed. The Bizantine State was just reflection of the late antiquity , rise of Islam and novadays Europe. The China for example is the original China just from the name , from perspective of the someone who actually know their history. If we think about the chinese history like the history of Hans then the first Emperor was just some guy before them. The continuation of the state is illusion in this case. In case of Byzantine Empire is not becauce it's literal eastern , part of original Roman Empire , if we like it or not. Their main purposes were preserving the knowlegde of lost empire ,survive and if this is possible reconquer the lost lands. They really succeded in every point , not permanetly but what in this world is permanent? Arabs every precious greek manuscript got from Byzantines who really cared about the libraries and knowlegde generally .They survive 1000 years despite such critical odds like being attacked by new big guy (Arabs and Islam) after the extremely exhausting war with 2nd superpowers like Persia ,hence losing the richest provinces or being deprived of their capital city ( in the same time being super centralistic state) This guys even had real successes like obviously reconquista of Justinian , conquest of Armenia , the inclusion of former enemies in their cultural circle (nations of Balkans , Kyiv Rus so the Eastern Slavs or even Moravians who actually never fought with byzantines) , theology , their ceremonies and lifestyle with even such details like the fork was copied across the courts of european rulers. Their army , fortifications and most important the organizational skill were real threat for everyone who tried to invade them. Their art and architecture were absolutly superior . In Byzantine history yeah we had the big fails but we're talking about the fails what would kill every other country but not their. I could talk now about strength of their administration with roman lineage , the improvements of army and many other but I think it's enough to show you that the jugding the next stage of evolution of any civilazation by standards of one era is just pointless

[@TheDirtysouthfan]

The Venetians in 1204 captured the city, and later the Romans came back and re captured it in 1266. Moreover others like the Kievan Rus sacked the city. So it wasn’t unheard of for that to happen.

[@ZAR556]

forgot to mention the Fourth Crusade ?? aight then

[@adityapriyahutama8900]

I was iooking for this comment 1👍

[@Adrian13235]

Constantinople was conquered multiple times though it was very rare the times they were conquered like the fourth crusade usually was because of not having enough man power or resources to defend the huge city

[@themilkywaygalaxy6484]

Fourth crusade only worked because the crusaders were let inside the city before they became hostile

[@enderreaper1482]

The Fourth Crusade was literally invited into the city

[@octaviogutierrez9158]

Yes but it was easly reconquered and the city survived 200 years even when it was in a decline age.

[@octane2782]

2020: nuke go Boom

[@AHD_2009]

Why

[@octane2782]

@@AHD_2009 why not

[@tabinekoman]

What make Roman a Roman?

[@xoster1272]

*gets viciously sacked and conquered by catholics in 1204* You: "Constantinople was never conquered before those pesky Turks came 😡"

[@Gizz101]

Catholics were let in

[@MercyX-v3o]

Hshahaah yes☺️

[@waynewaldron3145]

No huns on the east

[@Eazy-ERyder]

You say one word: Constantinople Yet you CONTINUALLY belittle Constantine THE GREAT, the Capital city's founder. Oh well. But you are right about tbe east.

[@FritzP71]

1204

[@MaximusOrthodox]

The Answer is Orthodoxy☦️

[@rafjas9850]

Unfortunately it was one of the reasons why they finally fall. But in case of Greeks under the turkish occupation this answer is correct

[@MaximusOrthodox]

@@rafjas9850 Not really. The reason was that the Ottomans had cannons. However Orthodoxy still thrived despite Muslim attack and there is still a Patriarchate of Constantinople.

[@rafjas9850]

@@MaximusOrthodox Yes , but I though about orthodoxy's inflexibity in many situations like you know ..making the same mistakes like some popes ,so no trying to make up with western Christianity , being more focusing on doctrine when actual threat in form of Islam who try to conquer your home and generally being deaf on problems of state, even in the final days of siege from 1453 when still many of monks prefered to lost their freedom than cooperate with their western counterpats from west. I know that the situation after the 1204 was pretty bad becauce of latins and Greeks were justified to hate them but still , if someone would really help them it were the latins. For me the acts of these monks were just selfish and unnecessary when everybody try to survive

[@MaximusOrthodox]

@@rafjas9850 Well, Doctrine is also important, but I agree they could have defended better from the threat of Islam. The monks were persecuted and this was post crusade so the latins were not there.

[@rafjas9850]

@@MaximusOrthodox Persecuted ? One of them become later the patriarch of Constantinople from sultan's order and in 1453 even one of Italians was second in command after the Emperor and the size of the forces of western mercenaries was significant

[@lastmannotstanding3741]

city of TROY: if i fall my decendant will rise again and become far more stronger than me constantinople: hello great 1000× grandfather

[@MerkhVision]

That’s… not true at all lol

[@michaelbilotta1567]

@@MerkhVision It probably isn't. However from a mythological point of view it would make sense. As the story of Rome at least allegedly starts with Aeneas, then Romulus and Remus, then many many centuries later Constantine the Great founded Constantinople.

[@Nate-dv5dp]

That's wrong. The western empire fell and the east stood long before Constantinople was on the front lines. This is an oversimplification

[@Asraf_Ahmad]

11 of those siege are from Muslim Empire. Of course we know how impressive it was...

[@danielefabbro822]

Eastern Roman Empire: denies trade rights to Genua, Venezia and other Italian city-states. The Italian Naval Republics: And I took it personally. 😈😏😎

[@Demetrios123]

Orthodoxy

[@edwardweaver1467]

Is that acent German?

[@aryayashwantmehta]

The walls were breached with cannons designed by Christian engineer

[@dominicvenn2416]

Laughs in crusaders and ottamons

[@fnapFNAP]

Oh I totally forgot crusaders sacked the city in their way here crusaders let's go fight Muslims and sack Constantinople in the way it will be fine

[@leandrostsilis5730]

The crusades broke a promise and sacked an undefended city and the Ottomans took a city that had gone through a century of decay. So not so great of an accomplishment for both of them

[@themilkywaygalaxy6484]

Both of these groups only got in because the doors were left open, in the crusaders case they were literally let inside before they attacked

[@fnapFNAP]

@@leandrostsilis5730 well in ottomans case they did what others couldn't But it's funny how the best defended city in history fell because of f a door

[@comradekenobi6908]

@@themilkywaygalaxy6484 cannons and ships on land:

[@thewaytosalvation145]

One Name: Sultan Muhammad Fatih

[@thewaytosalvation145]

@David Alvarez haha luck, yeah. Sultan Fatih was one of the best rulers of the time. He showed that in the way he ruled Constantinopel.

[@thewaytosalvation145]

@David Alvarez Yes, them moving boats over land was alslo luck and not military genius. Do you see why you are biased?

[@BuddyCakes]

​@@thewaytosalvation145 it was not the same byzantine as it was in 400 ad the Constantinople he conquered was alr a dying capital