@@paulstone3590 well, probably AI will continue to improve to the point that actually it will be very useful for this type of stuff & allow people to make bespoke pictures with period accurate clothing & armor(over the coming decades, not years)... I mean, I can't think of a better use for AI generated images; yeah it's problematic in most situations as a technology but this is pretty much the bread and butter... But yeah, I agree in its current state and the amount of effort put into tailoring what's produced it gets tiresome
Centuries before, when the Goths besieged the City in 378, it was Arab warriors (before the advent of Islam) who ventured out of the walls and put the Goths to flight with their killing frenzy; one of the Arab warriors made quite an impression by fighting naked and by quenching his thirst with the blood of Goth warriors he had, himself, decapitated.
have you ever considered making a video about the decline/collapse of the theme system/tagmata in the 11th century ive heard general hints about it but nothing that goes into any detail as much as you do
For this topic I recommend everyone read “The Empire that would not die, the Paradox of Eastern Roman Survival 640-740” by John Haldon. It covers this siege and is dedicated to analyzing how Byzantium survived all the events that happened to it during this period even accounting for things such as change in climate and its affect on Byzantine agriculture.
The setbacks of the 7th and 8th centuries were truly as devastating as the 3rd and 5th centuries, but just like the Romans of antiquity, the Romans of the early middle ages relied on key individuals to guide them through the darkest of times.
Always wondered had the Sassanid-Byzantine war of the early 600s hadn’t occurred would the Arab conquest been as successful as it was. A fascinating time period in my opinion.
Should be a simple answer: NO And that particular Sassa - Byza war happened because of PHOCAS. Therefore, the Arab Caliphate "happened" because of Phocas 😑😑 aka the traitor of humanity ⚔️
Have you already done or could you maybe (if its worthwhile and if there is enough information or as such) do a video about the relations between the city of rome and the byzantine empire? I mean there was the Duchy of Rome, Constans II visited rome and thought about making it the capital once again, but still they lost hold of it sometime and the papacy took over.
Why the Author never even mention who played the decisive role for repelling the assault and lifting that siege, the Bulgarian horsemen of Khan Tervel!!!??
That would be because Tervel assisted in the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople and this is talking about the First Arab Siege of Constantinople, which occurred fifty years before.
@@alanpennie8013 I have no doubt that the 2 civilizations insulted each other but there is also the issue of whether one side regarded themselves as being Islamic at the time or rather more defined themselves by what they were against....so Trinitarian Byzantines against one god with no associates (as in holy spirit and the son Jesus).
One of the best reasoned historical videos I have seen on RU-vid in a very long time. Better still, no AI voice, but a real narrator. Excellent effort,. Thank you.
l knew there was a debate about whether the siege of constantinople by the arabs in 667-669 was factual or not but l didnt know the nuances of it.Great video
Thank you very much. Greek fire was particularly scary because it continued to burn on water. While not invincible it could be used to deadly effect and could often break the morale of an attacker. For example the tenth century Viking attack on Constantinople of beaten by 20 fire ships commanded by the eunuch Theophanes.
Altough i LOVE byzantine history, i find the fight for survival period(640-717) one of their most interesting periods and i love how they still managed to hold on more than a million square km
After watching this video, I cannot helped but wondering about this. Do you think that the sources of the First Siege of Constantinople by the Arabs are being contradicting and confusing on purpose? Do you think the propaganda to glorify the Arabs' second attempt during the reign of Emperor Leo III played a part in this? After all, peoples often talked a lot about the Second Siege of Constantinople by the Arabs with great utmost importance because such a success has the potential to change the history of the world both before and even after what happened in 1453.
As we shall see in the next video the Arab sources from the Umayyad age did get a bit of rewriting by the historians of the Abbasid age but that was focused more on rubbishing the Umayyads. The good thing is we are not reliant on the Arab sources for corroberating evidence as we shall see in the next video. To appraise the importance of the two, the second does seem to have been more important than the first in terms of scale and we have more information about the second. The first was still significant, possibly being the tipping point for the assassination of Constans II and the highwater mark of Arab successes against the Romans. Unscrambling the order of events shows that it was the war conducted by Constantine IV during the 670's was very important for stabilising the frontier. What might have happened had the greater than 30000 strong army and navy Arab army completed their task?
@@EasternRomanHistory Do you think that if Constans II did not die, will he eventually make things better for the Empire a lot sooner, the first attempt to take Constantinople by the Arabs will never happened and the Twenty Years' Anarchy could have been avoided? Also, I heard that the Senate took control of his reign during the early days of the regency. So what stopped those Senators from seizing power and turning it back into the proper Republic once again? After all, didn't they always wanted to do that ever since the days of Octavian proclaimed himself the Augustus? Speaking of information from the Arab sources, do you think which sources is more believable when it comes to Emperor Michael III? The Roman authors, most likely under the payrolls of Basil I, wrote negatively about him while the Arab sources written positively about him. So we have two sources originated from the enemies of both Michael III but one written about him negatively while the other one written about him positively. So between the Roman and Arab sources, which one is more trustworthy in your view?
@@EasternRomanHistory the first siege was far more dangerous they didn't have greek fire yet and Anatolia raid was so bad infact they almost got it if they didn't abounded it because of lack of supply the second siege was ez victory for leo 3rd since he know he can win on water all he had to do is open Anatolia for them without destroying the fort and ally with Bulgaria and keep foolling maslama
It has previously be argued by some that it never happened at all, but it seems a bit much to just invent a siege of Constantinople and this theory rested on the strength of the corroborating Eastern evidence without consultation of the western material. Again that was an issue on not using all of the available sources.
Man, people really jumped to conclusions back in the day. See an eclipse, or bad thunderstorm, or snow, or even a rainbow(!) and everyone's all "The world is about to end!!!"
Leo knew that he had to lure it the arab on sea because the arab at time nearly toke amoria had the arab toke Anatolia the Byzantine would have lost for good just like turk did To me Byzantine in 730 was better then 1180 why it cuz of Anatolia was far more important then bullkans and Italy had Manuel realise this early who knew if had retaking Anatolia he could have delayed Byzantine fall for many years
I wish you well-being from Asia Minor, the center of Eastern Roman. I follow your videos with interest. Today's Turks carry an average of 50% Eastern Roman blood. In some regions, this rate rises to 60-65%.
Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things: prophet Muhammad said Verily, you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful army will that army be, and what a wonderful commander will that conqueror be.”
