Battle for the East - How did Heraclius restore the Byzantine Empire? - Medieval History DOCUMENTARY 

Please send me a message..

What Muslims did with these two empires 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Hah no wonder Tiflis held it was built really long time ago even before byzantium intervention into Caucasus I think even before the byzantiums existence and it was fortified because iberians/past Georgians had to fight many wars against enemys so they made sure their new capital whod be strong but Iberia still fell and others took it and because of territorial and strategical advantage the city gave it was made stronger by foreign force strong enough to repel many attacks thrown at it but of course it was Georgians who made that as strong as it was

Türkçe olması çok iyi

Each time when you say Byzantium, I have to vomit. Why can't you pronounce it correctly, eventhough your motherthongue is English.

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

I wonder what his army looked like during battle must have just dominated to go through so many armies so easily

Hoofdofficier

@@alimoradi8454 g

@@dustintacohands1107 I recommend Roman Heavy Cavalry(2) if ya wanna know what his cavalry and his own equipment looked like.

I agree with you 👍

He gave Syria and Egypt to the arabs, there was no arab conquest.Arabs were auxiliars of Heraclius.

@@ouss lol he did not give them. The Arabs won battles and took them by force until they were halted in Asia minor. They would have kept going of it weren't for that.

@@ouss Lol what his interests to gave arabs egypt and levante ??..dont deny facts there was conquest and battlez

@@V-man117 they took asia minore and the east romans were romans not your history. Heraclius was Carthaginian the three walls in row are reason that city didn't fall for them it was almost destained

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

He also have part of north africa

@@alimoradi8454 Armenian are not iranic

@@alimoradi8454 He was Carthaginian

@@Cancoillotteman he fought hard the early muslims but you can't defeat a group who defeated death itself.

It would have been an interesting outcome not having Khosrow preoccupied with Heraclius in the East and the Persians being able to breach the heavily defended Bosphorus and somehow ferry their troops on the opposite side. Perhaps we Balkaners would all speak Farsi and worship Ahura Mazda.

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

I think if the Persians managed to establish contact with the avars by sailing across the Bosporus there could have a way for the avars to take the city. Its not likely but given how even the famous city of Dara was taken two times speaks volumes of Persian siege knowledge. We see before that during the 4th century, the siege of Amida and Edessa demonstrates the impressiveness of Persian siege capabilities. In amida, Persian soldiers built a mound of dirt and different materials to reach across the walls and stack a bridge across was rather ingenious. At Edessa, we see Persians building a battering ram that smashed through one of the tower walls due to the inspecting and finding a weakness in the recently dried section. Likewise in the 6th century Persian-Lazica wars, the city of Petra which was captured by the Persians held out for a long period of time and had built cisterns with multiple channels with water to flow through and despite efforts by the roman military to cut it, water still flowed to the city. The city was eventually captured but the Persians fought on without surrendering. Eventually burning to death by Roman soldiers setting many structures of the city on fire. So I believe that the Avars may be able to take Constantinople if the Persians managed to link up with the avars.

Glad to see you here, Mr. M. Laser! It always leaves me in a good mood to see the enthusiasm in the RU-vid community. Love your work. For history!

I cant see how they will take a city like Constantinople considering its defensives

زدی به خال

Yeah he was waiting for the war score to reach 100% before sending a peace offer. Heraklio just said fuck it took a bunch of Loan and debase currency and spam mercenaries till he won xD xD

@@andrews.5212 he did’t wait for perfection, the situation in Persia was far more difficult than in Greece, the turks were millions and migrated to Central Asia and northern Iran constantly beside the persians controlled a land thrice (not taking in count the newly conquered lands is Syria, palestine, Egypt and eastern anatolia) the size of the eastern Roman Empire

Not really, according to the Kayanid ideology of the Sassanids the Roman emperor was a descendant of Salm, one of the three sons of the legendary hero Fereydun, while Iraj was the ancestor of the Sasanian kings. This means that Roman emperor was both a brother and an enemy to the Sasanian king of kings, as Iraj was murdered by his brothers Salm and Tur.

@@shapuri478 Kayanid ideology became the official Sassanid ideology from the time of Yazdegerd II. The ideology of the early Sassanids and Parthians was based on the revival of the Achaemenid Empire. Roman historians have pointed out that Ardashir I and before him the Parthian kings sought to revive the Achaemenid Empire. Khosrow II also sought to further consolidate his power by combining the two ideologies.

The new enemy was fresh and motivated, whereas the Byzantines and the Persians were exhausted and depleted

Indeed if only both sides had found peace and not pillaged each other so much they were so weak to stop the spread of Islam just imagine history would have been so different if the Persians and Byzantines had stopped the Arabs

@@neemapaxima6116 it wasn't that simple it is true that byzantine and Sassanid Empire was it exhausting from wars. but that wasn't enough to be defeated by the arabs the byzantine and Sassanid still was superior to the arabs in term of manpower and equipments. there were a lot of time where the two empires was about defeated arabs in battles but somehow the Arabs find a new tactics that can turn the tide against them. if you watch the early islamic expansion you would understand that arabs didn't have a superior advantage over the two empire rather they were inferior in terms of numbers also in terms of economics and equipments they didn't have what was necessary to defeats the two empire. the only things that the arabs had was a great generals or one of the greatest of all.

@@hornerfarah2282 the Arabs also had unquestionably greater morale, the Persians, and especially Romans were tired of being taxed to poverty for endless wars, so when the Arabs came in and promised a tax break many cities caved without fighting. Had they not been generous, it's unlikely the Arabs would have won.

@@jeremiahblake3949 That's true. That seems one of many reasons Why the 2 empires lost against the arabs. Some people claims that the 2 empires was tired and exhausting from Wars against each other But it wasn't that the case.

Extremely underrated Empire. They were quite strong.

​@@zippyparakeet1074 underrated?? My brother in christ its rome

@@Chaos.InsurgencyDeltaCommand If you think East Rome/Medieval Rome is as popular as Ancient Rome then you're deluded.

@@zippyparakeet1074 you literally meant to say "rome was underrated"

@@zippyparakeet1074 infact every rome is fairly known

But another way of looking at this would be, had he died early, he wouldn't have been able to save stabilize the Roman empire in the wake of the Arab conquests. He may have been the one reason why the empire continued to thrive for centuries more after his death

@@theblackswordsman9951 The War of Ridda (632-633) 90% of the Arabs are against the Caliphate Look for battles such as Siege of Medina 632 The Battle of Al-Bazzakha The Battle of Al-Batah 633 The Battle of Al-Yamamah 633

Heraclius is the very reason those regions were lost so I’m not sure his reputation would be spotless otherwise.

He is still portraited very favourably in Greek literature.

He didn’t die immediately after his reconquest. He died after rashidun conquest of the levant. Please learn history then speak.

*Roman

heraclius didn't win the war. The Persians did.

@@saeedvazirian cope

Thank you for the nice words brother

khosrow was angry that his entire force was destroyed by Theodore but yeah whipping a corpse just shows how petty khosrow II was

A miracle mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. When the noble verse was revealed to the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, the Persians had defeated the Romans, and people at that time believed that it was impossible for the Roman Empire to win, but the Holy Qur’an brought a miracle, where God said: In the name of God the Merciful (The Romans have been defeated in the lowest part of the earth, and after their defeat they will be victorious in a few years. To God belongs the command before and after. And on that day the believers will rejoice in the victory of God. He gives victory to whomever He wills, and He is the Mighty, the Most Merciful.) God has mentioned that the fighting was in the lowest part of the earth, and modern science has now discovered that the sea The dead is the lowest place on earth, the place where the Romans and Persians fought, Glory be to God

@@abdelhakhadjadj9406 Whut

@@adinarapratama5607 I didn't understand what you mean

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

Thank you very much!

@@alimoradi8454 such bullshit should not be allowed in the comment sections.

@@alimoradi8454 No, he was not. He was white and European an Arvanitis and Greek! And no Armenia 🤣🤣

A miracle mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. When the noble verse was revealed to the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, the Persians had defeated the Romans, and people at that time believed that it was impossible for the Roman Empire to win, but the Holy Qur’an brought a miracle, where God said: In the name of God the Merciful (The Romans have been defeated in the lowest part of the earth, and after their defeat they will be victorious in a few years. To God belongs the command before and after. And on that day the believers will rejoice in the victory of God. He gives victory to whomever He wills, and He is the Mighty, the Most Merciful.) God has mentioned that the fighting was in the lowest part of the earth, and modern science has now discovered that the sea The dead is the lowest place on earth, the place where the Romans and Persians fought, Glory be to God

He was a ruler, not a leader. There is a difference between those. A leader asks and a ruler commands, sometimes with an iron-grip. Hate to have to post this comment.

Not the same turks. Plus they are Romans.

Same thing happened with bulgars

Not the same Turks, totally different and probably hated each other.

Like who could have imagined that Anatolia would turn out to be more Roman than Rome itself (after fall of the western empire)

it is the same turks who migrated from asia with different path lol.

also whenever they start recovering, another formidable enemy emerges (avars, muslims, seljuks...)

@@evranirnek True, though they always managed to survive and bounce back and weather said storms until the body blow of the fourth crusade and arrival of the ottomans.

Eastern Rome

@@nelsonr1467 Byzantium/Eastern Roman Empire its the same empire. Like saying tomatoes or tomatoes as the saying goes.

A miracle mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. When the noble verse was revealed to the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, the Persians had defeated the Romans, and people at that time believed that it was impossible for the Roman Empire to win, but the Holy Qur’an brought a miracle, where God said: In the name of God the Merciful (The Romans have been defeated in the lowest part of the earth, and after their defeat they will be victorious in a few years. To God belongs the command before and after. And on that day the believers will rejoice in the victory of God. He gives victory to whomever He wills, and He is the Mighty, the Most Merciful.) God has mentioned that the fighting was in the lowest part of the earth, and modern science has now discovered that the sea The dead is the lowest place on earth, the place where the Romans and Persians fought, Glory be to God

*Roman

He should be. Even Hannibal considered great even though he lost everything in the end.

Him being the Emperor made the Muslims look OP.

@@user-dl5ln3wd6f more like kill steal.

​@@aldrinmilespartosa1578 نعم مثل روما في قرطاج

Indeed. And on this matter I've always been quite fascinated at how much of a powerhouse Anatolia was for the romans since they arrived there. No matter the times, it always provided a good base of manpower, naval bases, excellent defenses and economy. It always remained loyal and sturdly resisted against parthians, persians, huns, goths, avars, slavs, bulgars, arabs, mongols and seljuks. And, ironically, the ones who screwed things over the most were the crusaders who came there "to help". But even then they remained purple and even when Constantinople fell against the turks, they still had the north for a couple of years. It's weird to think Anatolia was "roman" for way longer than the city of Rome itself.

wish it lived on

*Roman

They inherited that luck from the Old Roman republic itself. Rome was sacked by the Gauls in 390 BC and that was mostly a death sentence to most aspiring city-states. That Rome was able to recover and subjugate the entire Italian peninsula was a miracle of itself .

العرب فتحوا المناطق التي استعادها وهنا يعتبر انجازاته لا شيء لانه بالفعل خسر الشام ومصر امام الجيوش الإسلامية الغير مدرعة عكس الرومان

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

The muslim army at the battle of Yarmouk was not better trained then the roman army.

It was strategy that led to a Muslim victory at Yarmouth not experience or training

He didn’t personally lead that army you know right.

Heracleus was expart in personal dual. He could be a great match against Khalid

It was will of Allah that muslims would win the battle

@@yaqubebased1961 chill we cant lose any more history and important stuff dude

​@@yaqubebased1961 you do what to islam 😂 I can gather all zoroastrians in what's group around world

A miracle mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. When the noble verse was revealed to the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, the Persians had defeated the Romans, and people at that time believed that it was impossible for the Roman Empire to win, but the Holy Qur’an brought a miracle, where God said: In the name of God the Merciful (The Romans have been defeated in the lowest part of the earth, and after their defeat they will be victorious in a few years. To God belongs the command before and after. And on that day the believers will rejoice in the victory of God. He gives victory to whomever He wills, and He is the Mighty, the Most Merciful.) God has mentioned that the fighting was in the lowest part of the earth, and modern science has now discovered that the sea The dead is the lowest place on earth, the place where the Romans and Persians fought, Glory be to God

One name: Shahbaraz

Except that Khosrau was more justified to behave in such a way.

in the time of wining people knows them as god and historians they write about them how great they are but in time of loosing definitely they call them trash they gid rid of him and....

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

Awesome! Thank you!

Thank you!

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

@@alimoradi8454 nice 👍

"thing happens" You lot: ahh, this must be a divine law!

@@yaqubebased1961 What are you yapping about?

@@yaqubebased1961Not divine law, man goes all in and wins the bet

A miracle mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. When the noble verse was revealed to the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, the Persians had defeated the Romans, and people at that time believed that it was impossible for the Roman Empire to win, but the Holy Qur’an brought a miracle, where God said: In the name of God the Merciful (The Romans have been defeated in the lowest part of the earth, and after their defeat they will be victorious in a few years. To God belongs the command before and after. And on that day the believers will rejoice in the victory of God. He gives victory to whomever He wills, and He is the Mighty, the Most Merciful.) God has mentioned that the fighting was in the lowest part of the earth, and modern science has now discovered that the sea The dead is the lowest place on earth, the place where the Romans and Persians fought, Glory be to God

Glad you enjoyed it!

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

@@alimoradi8454 can the channel delete this comment for spamming it OK every comment ?

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

@@alimoradi8454 what are you saying? it was actually the Iranian emperor of Rome vs the Iranian emperor of Iran? lol

I think that the Greeks proved incompetent rulers of Rome. The Latins produced many good emperors. Heraclius was at the borderline, at the transition between the Latin and Greek empire. Indeed he was Armenian, he favored Greek over Latin culture and he was superb ruler.

@@user-sc5iv2rp2t Justinian

@@user-sc5iv2rp2t How were Greeks incompetent, as you said Heraclius was not Greek Neither was his dynasty. Chad Soldier Emperors like Basil II And Nikephoros Phocas say hello.

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

Glad you enjoy it!

Cope x2

@@Someone-by6jm yeah pretty much, I’m sure there is many things of history you would like to change as well

Like all great empires what destroyed it was in fighting and bad leadership , check the usa now with sleepy Joey the puppet

Cope.

They did, The Byzantines and Sassanid actually teamed up againts the Rashidun, but they still lost😂

More to come. Working with Strategy Stuff is an absolute pleasure.

Sorry bud but making excuses is kinda pathetic, I'm one of the biggest supporters of the theory that if the Byzantine Empire was at it's peak the Arabs wouldn't have been able to obliterate them in battle after battle but it was at it's weakest in it's history at the time and it doesn't matter whether Heraclius was old or not he was going to get defeated why do you think his goal was to just end the war rather than winning it? Because if we actually look at it from a logical point of view nobody won this war the Persians won multiple battles in a row to gain lands then the Byzantines won multiple battles to restore them so either way the resources would've been depleted as hell, there's a reason why Heraclius didn't try as hard as the Sassanids to reclaim the lands he lost and it's because he knew that he exerted most of his energy against the Sassanids

@@williamrobert9898 no the Romans out numbered the Muslims in every battle and had better equipment. It wasn't a matter of resources. They had way more resources than the arabs

@@williamrobert9898 Kinda pathetic, eh? Do you begin all your posts with pointless insults? Grow up. The rest of your post is also nonsense. Heraclius defeated the Persians, period. You are correct that he did not focus on reclaiming the lands, and that he didn't do so because he was resource poor compared to Khosrow by the time he took the throne, but that makes his eventual victory more impressive, not less. Just because the territorial outcome was a return to the status quo does not make it a stalemate. By the time Heraclius took charge, getting that territory back was incredibly unlikely, but he did, got his enemies to officially admit defeat, and ultimately plunged Persia into a civil war that would kill Khosrow. When your actions cause your enemy to die and his country to descend into chaos, that's victory, even if you choose not to take territory that would be a major drain to defend. Besides that, the Romans had greater resources than the Arabs in the beginning, though the war with Persia had definitely left them weaker than ever before (aside from during that war of course). What they lacked was leadership (and also, they didn't have nearly the level of fortified border with Arabia that they did with Persia), which Heraclius or his heirs could have provided, had not concerns over his death (and soon after, his actual death) prevented him and his heirs from leaving the capital while the question of succession was in the air. Rome, including the Byzantine era, always had messy successions, and the fact that an active counterattack had to be scrapped on his death is a major direct and undeniable impact of his age upon the conflict.

@@scipioamericanus6711 Lol you called my comment nonsense but then proceeded to copy what I sad but in different wording which means you contradicted yourself so better luck next time and btw literally said from a logical point of view this war was a stalemate and I am correct since it is considered to be one. Period

​@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl But man would that be a sight to see. The legend from the Roman and the Muslim face off against each other. Like Hannibal and Scipio.

Arabs had great strategists that made them win all their battles. Byzantium and Persia belittled the Arabs before they got handed by them. There was a Byzantine historian who said Byzantium does not deserve Jerusalem after their embarrassing defeat by the Muslims.

Exactly. Both the Byzantines and Sassanids were not as weak and defenseless as they are portrayed. Even if they were not at their prime, they were still formidable empires that put up a good fight. The excuse they use it that they just came out of a war before they were attacked, but the Arab Muslims were also putting down a peninsula wide rebellion against Islam right before they attacked both empires. If war weakened the empires what about the Caliphate? I think neither side was weak and this was a true war and the Arab Muslims came out on top because of their discipline and greater desire to fight and expand Islam. They weren't fighting for some emperor who will take all the glory but for themselves and their religion.

@@Rushrush13 you are massively overestimating how much the common soldiers would've actually known about islam in these first years

ok so first 1. the sassanids were already on the verge of complete collapse by 632, they had a massive plague outbreak, civil war and turkish invasions from the north which completely tore their country apart and by 632 they were left with a weak puppet shah and half the country's nobility were no longer listening to the central government 2. the byzantine victorious army (which would've been quite small) was dispersed across the empire in smaller field armies after the victory, and there's absolutely no indication that any of these veterans were still in the army when the arabs arrived, remember along with the army of oriens (which would've faced the arabs) they also had field armies for armenia, thrace and forces specifically for defending the capital which heraclius re-instituted after the war 3. even though the byzantines won the war and didn't fall into the same chaotic spiral as the sassanids, they had no money since he had to repay debt taken from the church so had to bring in austerity measures since as far as he knew the empire had a period of peace and respite ahead of it which made raising and assembling new forces more difficult 4. if all you know of the conquests are from youtube videos then they probably take the 9th century muslim sources at face value, which you should not do

@@hegantank6495 They only need to know the basics. Islam was mostly an oral religion in the early days. Not everyone could get a copy of the Qur'an so they memorize and recite it from memory. Even to this day Muslims memorize the Qur'an and recite it in prayers.

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

Emperor of the Romans is more accurate, never was a "Byzantine".

Thank you kindly

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

but got double uno reversed by the arabs lol

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

@@alimoradi8454 spam

@@thoughtshewasaryan2591 Then Leo triple uno reversed at the Siege of Constantinople.

@@hammer3721 and he turks own it now so STAY MAD

Thank you so much!

Wow, thank you

@@HistoryMarche np :)

if he wasn't a "genius" he would be remembered as an idiot, for sure :)

Glad you enjoyed it

Very Interesting, thank you

@@juandirection5622 you're welcome.

@@Saleh-994 any source?

Khosrow was much ahead of his time. He knew what a hell and backward this letter will bring to the world

@@NIKOS_GEROSIDERIS I don't know if you believe Arab resources or not? Their are many ancient Arab books mentioned that especially at the time of Abassiad caliphate...

It was the first insult by the Romans. To invade Iran to open a country. But the great Parthian general. Sorena. He taught them the greatest lesson

Yes, but he did some really horrible things on his way and in the city of Sabur, like he ordered to slit open the bellies of pregnant women and to smash the fetuses on rocks (Based on Psalm 136). Of course, the Sassanids likely did their fair share of war crimes, but the actions of Heraclius are noted in Zoroastrian texts as inhuman.

persians arse was creampied by khalid and ummayads the righteous rulers of islam@@shapuri478

Thank you so much!!

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

Heraclius didn't sack Ctesiphon nor deposed khosrow

@@soroushtorabi98 you are probably right, what makes you say that? I am genuinely interested in knowing an alternative source. The book I mentioned was based on some historical sources and mostly Author's own research.

@@aftabnaveed every single sources focuses on him retreating back to Constantinople after the battle of Nineveh . I'd like to know what source are you using for him sacking Ctesiphon

@@soroushtorabi98 he literally just told you bro tf???

It's difficult to know which sources to believe. Obviously the Persians - as you say - had the ulterior motive of placing "Theodosius" on the throne if/when they conquered the Eastern Roman Empire, as a puppet ruler. Likewise, the Romans themselves would've had a motive for publicly doubting his identity, as it would've meant a challenge to Heraclius' rule.

its was destined , there was a higher intervention as we muslims believed, these quranic verses were revealed to prophet muhammad after the romans were defeated, the muslims were waiting the triumph of the romans after that to rejoice. the holy quran , chapter of the romans verses 1-6 1. Alif-Lam-Mim. 2. The Romans have been defeated. 3. In the nearer land (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine), and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. 4. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after (these events) is only with Allah, (before the defeat of Romans by the Persians, and after, i.e. the defeat of the Persians by the Romans). And on that Day, the believers (i.e. Muslims) will rejoice (at the victory given by Allah to the Romans against the Persians), 5. With the help of Allah, He helps whom He wills, and He is the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful. 6. (It is) a Promise of Allah (i.e. Allah will give victory to the Romans against the Persians), and Allah fails not in His Promise, but most of men know not.

@@user-ve1sr2wi1w That is quite fascinating to see someone predicting that the Romans would win when they were in such dire state

classic case of stretching an army too thin on the persian side

@@user-ve1sr2wi1w LOL what a clown. Making up verses for other dumb dumbs to believe.

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠From Jami e Tirmidhi 2935: On the Day of Badr, the Romans had a victory over the Persians. So the believers were pleased with that, _then_ the following was revealed: Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated... ...the believers will rejoice. (30:1-4)" He said: "So the believers were happy with the victory of the Romans over the Persians..." grade: _Hassan_ (good) That prophesy came after Muslims already learned of Roman victories in their counteroffensive. It is still an impressive prediction however. It would be foolish to deny.

Completely disagree the fact that he even lost this amount of lands proves that he wasn't as successful

@@williamrobert9898 did uwatch teh video?winning a 30 year war against roman biggest enemy and retakign all lost lands proves that he was one of the most capables emperors

@@nihil_hd1598 Indeed he was there's no denying that but to say he is the only Roman emperor to have been so successful against Persia is a gigantic reach because of the fact that he lost these lands from the first place and btw he didn't win the war, if you look it up it has been said multiple times that this war left both empires with 0 gains it only succeeded in depleting their resources which allowed the Rashiduns to expand on their expense, it basically ended with both of them losing

he did win the war even though it was phyric victory had he lost the Roman empire would have died of in 620s instead of 1453

​@@El-Silvernah

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

@@alimoradi8454 stop spreading lies

Still salty?

LIBERATED?

@@safi272 Arabs didn't liberate anyone. Look at Egypt. Shit hole. Libya? Shit hole. Algeria? Shit hole. Morocco? Shit hole. You can't even drink the water in these countries. They dont take care of their history or environment. Europeans do

@@safi272 don't be so proud bro you only attacked them at their weakest 😂

“liberated”

Heraclius was of an Armenian 🇦🇲 origin ( Iranian/Parthian/Persian nobility )

@@alimoradi8454 spam

Parthians are across the Caspian Sea

Glad you enjoyed it

Thank you!!

The funny part is, it was called RUM by Persians even 1500 years ago, they've been calling them Rum since Parthian times, calling them Byzantines is so inaccurate :))

Exactly.

There is a reason nobody calls byzantine history "roman history". It is ridiculous to do so because the Byzantine empire was NOT roman, especially after a certain point. The byzantines also did not believe to be romans..they just used the name and gatekeeped its boons. You could argue that the Byzantine empire kept the roman legacy alive and honoured its memory but that is as far as it gets.

@@dimel1347 First, many people, especially professionals (who should have the most weight in this matter), *do* call "Byzantine" history Roman history, for the simple reason that it *is* Roman history. Second, the Romans of the middle ages, you guessed it, *did* believe they were Romans, for the simple reason that that is exactly what they were. Third, if you can point me to the moment when Romans became Byzantines, I'll be grateful, because no scholar of Roman history can (also, a tip, be careful), for the simple reason that Romans never became Byzantines. Romans just were Romans until 1453.

@@ljss6805 First, most qualified professionals dont call it roman history. "Second, the Romans of the middle ages, you guessed it, did believe they were Romans" In Italy yes. There were no romans in the byzantine empire and byzantines did not believe to be roman because there was nothing roman about them. If you genuinely believe that the people from serbia to middle east believed to be ex residents of a little city in Italy, you are fooling yourself. Third, according to professionals there are multiple points that are argued..Some mention the fall of Rome, Some, the period after Heraclius. Some will give a transit point even before the fall of Rome. But everyone agrees that the Byzantine empire stopped being Roman. You are welcome, no need to be grateful. The fall of the actual roman western empire is also debated but everyone knows it happened. "Romans never became Byzantines. " Let me give you the tip back...the byzantines were not romans so they did not need to become byzantines. There were no romans in the eastern empire to begin with. Just like there were no romans in 1453. Just to make it clear. The byzantines were not romans, they did not believe to be romans and nobody in europe thought that they were romans. Byzantines were as roman as the Germanic empire of HRE was "roman". That is why nobody says "roman history". It is that simple.

Don't forget me there