crusaders against the byzantines: organized, well trained, utilizing the best tactics at hand crusaders against the muslims: oh god they sent one cavalry detachment, were fucked
Considering people celebrate the French and Germans, who fucked up in 8 consecutive war where the Italians were defending Christian territory leading to defeat and spit repeatedly on the Italian Nation i say that this is one of the best days in Italian history. We always show friendship and are met by hate, our ancestors got it right, we should never have placed any morals between us and gain opportunities.
The only thing about KaG's videos are bad is the map's accuracy, for example Croatia were in personalunio with Hungary since 1102 and Bosnia being under Kingdom of Hungary and it's King's crown territory but being de facto independent, not even personalunio and weren't really highlighted seperated on maps of Europe back then only on map of Kingdom of Hungary. On the east Vlachs and Uzes were overwhelmed by Cumans and Pechenegs already, and i could go on about his maps for days.
it most likely wouldnt have. the sack of constantinople crushed tax revenues, and left the city much less defensible. the byzantines lost the ingredients to make greek fire which was pivotal in the defense of the empire. the power vacuum that ensued allowed the muslim forces in the east to enjoy an extremely divided and weak christian force which they would crush. even after the restoration, the byzantines were much weaker than before the sack, and no longer had either the men or the money to launch restoration campaigns like the ones under Basil II.@@AaronRohan
@@AaronRohan You're just wrong on your assumption, after Manzikert the Byzantines lost ALL of Anatolia except a few coastal towns, cities, and castles, but over the intervening century the Turkic power of the Seljuks would entirely shatter leaving only a few struggling successor states, such as the Sultanate of Rum, which happened to lose to the Byzantines pretty badly as they took advantage of the chaos and retook all of the Aegean and Pontic coastlines, and few other holdings further inland, this was clear proof that the Byzantines could retake their former homeland of Anatolia. This progress of retaking Anatolia stopped during the Forth "Crusade" as Constantinople fell and the Empire shattered, but luckily with the help of the lords of Nicea and the Palaiologos dynasty, who had lead the charge in retaking Anatolia, they held out a little longer but not enough to matter, the power of the Byzantines was thoroughly shattered, further reconquest into Anatolia would be impossible when they had to go about retaking all their Greek homeland now as well, which they had lost thanks to the "Crusaders", they were facing a two front war between the spiteful Catholic Latins to the west and the hostile Muslim Turks to the east, that is why they were destined to lose. Had Byzantium only it's eastern border to contend with, even through the horrible civil wars and pathetic rulers, they would've reconquered Anatolia.
@@AaronRohan except you make no correct points at all, just half-truths, strength isn’t only measured by raw prowess alone. You forget important things, things like economy, diplomacy, culture, religion, etc. The Sassanids were by no objective means “weaker”than the Byzantines, they were in fact quite the considerably formidable foe. Yes, in general their armies fared worse in battle against the Byzantines, but that didn’t make them pushovers, they had the greater economic base as they controlled the Silk Road, and that especially hurts the Byzantines when they’ve just lost the western half of their empire 2 centuries prior and the economy isn’t exactly stable and/or self reliant, they would also ally with the Slavic and Germanic tribes to attack Byzantium, yet again that classic two front war. By the end Byzantium and the Sassanids were exhausted from decades of a war that had gotten neither anywhere, except weakened and battered, oh also add a massive case of the Black Plague in their as well, essentially decimating both Byzantine and Sassanid populations, hitting both their armies extremely hard. In the end it was a stalemate and the Sassanids retreated, giving the Byzantines war reparations as they had fared considerably worse and were now dealing with a civil war. It’s after this that the first Caliphate appears, the hottest new religion on the block, recruiting all to their glorious cause in the noble name of their prophet and God in an effort to spread their names to the four corners of the Earth, do this and they shall achieve salvation! Instead of fighting two large and powerful grizzled bears they instead found tired old bones, the Rashidun Caliphate fought a shadow of a shadow, yet they still put up a fight, it’s incredible really! Evidently the Sassanids would collapse and be open to Muslim invasion, but the Caliphate would be halted in Anatolia by the Byzantines. Now, with the first initial wave of invasions by the Caliphate, Byzantium had permanently lost Egypt, a devastating blow, meaning their ability to from a quick counteroffensive was lost alongside a massive amount of their economic base, this would slow down Byzantine reconquest, next thing you know you have Frankish hegemony in the west than later you get Charlemagne, but at the same time you also have the migration and invasion of multiple tribes primarily Slavic, into the Balkan holdings of Byzantium, but okay, they live through all of that, oh no, wait! Let’s just through a religious civil war for the shits and giggles between the Iconoclasts, Chalcedonians, and Bogomils. Not to worry now though, the Caliphate has just collapsed now is their time to shine and reconquer their Levantine lands and hopefully Egypt too! Nope, here come the Seljuks, and so on… So you get it? The Byzantines have always been fighting between two fronts, struggling to manage both, and at the worst of times, both in the same instance, and all of this while dealing with civil wars, plagues, and economic collapse, and yet under the right leadership they would moments of great triumph under the sun yet again, their history is amazing really, it’s one of a peoples that face disaster after disaster yet persevered. They would have most certainly retaken Anatolia had the Fourth “Crusade” not happened, but beyond that? Who can say, most likely Timur would’ve pushed their shit in yet again, but he wouldn’t have been able to go further than Anatolia, much like he did against the Ottomons in reality. Byzantium would never again be some resurgent superpower, but they could’ve certainly survived into the modern era as a regional power, no to dissimilar from Greece nowadays. By the way, next time you use biased half-truths don’t be so conceited in your assessment, makes you look like a prick, especially when you’re just objectively wrong.
and i agree with most of your points, however the byzantines would most definitely have been able to hold onto to their european territories for much longer. the ottomans were never known for their good navy, and the byzantines had greek fire capable of destroying any ship up until the 19th century. this would make it very plausible that the ottomans would be confined to asia and africa, and would dramatically changed history. anyways, back to my point. if the byzantines hadnt been sacked, theres a very real chance that they couldve survived. if you look at its history, even under crises, the byzantines were able to hold back the arab and turk empires. the ottomans simply couldnt cross into europe, and so would be forced eastward, meanwhile the byzantines would most likely be ended by a resurgent bulgaria or hungary.@@AaronRohan
Wait a minute did you just say Boniface is ‘the best goal shooter in the German league right now’ 😅😅😅 as of right now he’s on 7 goals where as Harry Kane is sitting on 18 😂
As an Italian, I wouldn't say best day ever. Sure, it benefited the Latins economically in the short term, but there is without a doubt that this led to the rise of the ottoman turns, the scourge of Europe that lasted for centuries. Had this not happened, then the ottomans would have not been as formidable in the early modern era, or nothing at all.
@@newtonia-uo4889Who cares about latins compared to the Roman Empire being divided which allowed the Turks to eventually become a superpower during the 1400’s- 1912. Both of them were bad, but the sack of Constantinople was way worse due to its side effects.
3:40 you say that, but look at how "elected presidents" surpassed them in every horrible way by a light year. I say it's not the ruling system, but what's the ruler doing whether he's a king or president.
It was probably doomed to happen tho, with or without that crusade. They were already making steady progresses, century after century, at this point. And central anatolia was already impossible to reconquer, too much migrations.
"The Catholic Church cannot, nor does it wish to, pose any obstacle to the internal relations of the soul with God; it even implores God to give the grace of repentance to the excommunicated. The rites of the church, nevertheless, are the providential and regular channel through which divine grace is conveyed to Christians; exclusion from such rites, especially from the sacraments, entails the privation of this grace, to whose sources the excommunicated person no longer has access."
@@bkern8536 most people probably did not. Besides that’s not even my point. My point is that his reaction content steals videos and impressions from everyone on the site. Where there would be an impression of original content there is now a reaction video.
@@Jackilichous You upload with the premise that its free to watch, this is how youtube works, if you dont like it, make some deal with some casting firm about monetary payment for watching videos. He reacted to a 2 year old video that already has peeked, this is probably the best attraction the channel gets if you are so woried about that. Go back to your wierd corner of the internet where you complain about useless topics.
