'Spinster' connotes a woman who never married at any point in her life, which was not the case with Irene. Rather, she ended her days in quiet widowhood.
Hello Roman history channel! Great work. Just subscribed. You've been added to the list. Lindybeige, Atun-Shei, Invicta, kings and generals, eastern roman history, thersites the historian, fire of learning, Monsierz, Toldinstone, and a few history edit channels like Marty Bones.
I enjoyed the video but I have few qualms with the historiography here. Sure we can speculate what if, but there were very specific pressures placed on Irene that probably forced her to make the choices she did. Staying as an advisor probably wouldn’t have worked and she would have been removed from the council (like Alicent Hightower in HoTD, ironically based on Byzantine history). Her spat with Constantine afterwards only serves as proof. She also had to act after her son threatened the church, his actions could have lead to another internal conflict and a split with Rome (the Pope was already running pretty annoyed with Constantinople as his coronation of Charlemagne several years later proved). Blinding was absolutely mandatory in the case of her son, if she didn’t do it a civil war was almost ensured. The only other option would be death and no parent would want to kill her own child. Blinding people seems ruthless to us but she wasn’t blinding him in modern times, she was blinding him in a time and place where this was expected. For example, when the heir to the Bulgarian prince Boris attempted to restore paganism, he came back from retirement arrested him, blinded him and installed his younger son Simeon as ruler. Never heard him being described as ruthless. Same goes for the eunuchs. She didn’t really alienate them, they openly plotted to depose her and take power away. She had any reason to act aggressively. Considering the long history of ruthless power hungry Byzantine emperors, her rule is completely in line with expectations, the only unusual thing is her gender, but that has lead to, frankly, unrealistic and unreasonable expectations of her rule. Apparently the only way a woman is supposed to rule is by being an enlightened philosopher queen that does everything right, otherwise she has a sordid tale. Btw, just to clarify that I really enjoyed the video, it is well done and obviously a lot of effort went into it! I also really appreciated the mention of Roman misogyny which as the comments prove many still have trouble in naming, but unfortunately it goes for the same stereotypical description of events most people go for. It’s really subtle and fascinating how the expectations change immediately based on her gender. Like if another emperor managed to repair a schism, fortify the borders of embattled realm and hold his own against multiple coup attempts, he would be remembered as anything but a good ruler.
It wasn't going to work because Charlemagne isn't going to left for Constantinople, while if Irene left there is going to be power vacuum in the capital.
@compatrio The mentalities of the Franks and the Byzantines were completely antagonistic,rendering such a monstruous union incompatible and autodestructive.
All the numismatic representations of Eastern Roman rulers past the sixth century or so are so highly stylized that we cannot glean a good idea of appearance based solely on them.
@@barrymoore4470 Yes, that's true. I argued about this with my friend. The decline of the Roman Empire was visible everywhere even in portraits on coins. Coins from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century AD have great almost realistic portraits of rulers. We can see what Nero looked like, and how Trajan, Hadrian, and many others looked. But from about 400s AD onwards the portraits on coins look extremely poorly, and primitive. It's clear that artisans from the 400s and 500s AD were a mere shadow of artisans from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD in terms of quality and photorealism. The Roman empire was falling apart and the art was falling with it.
@@oldi184 While older standards and expectations of craftsmanship certainly declined, I think some of the extreme stylization we see in Late Antiquity and beyond is attributable to a rising emphasis on spiritual concerns over material, earthly values associated with the classical age. People were more focused on the world to come than the world in which they actually found themselves living, and there was less attention paid to the accurate memorialization of fleshly likenesses.
@@barrymoore4470 Well. the rise and subsequent dominance of Christianity was partly to blame. There were many factors, of course, but Christianity played an important role. There is no doubt about that. The world from 500 AD onwards became simpler, more primitive, and more dark (Dark Ages). The Fall affected everything: art, technology, culture, and literature. Simple and primitive water wells (holes in the ground) took the place of advanced and complex aqueducts. Simpler and primitive art took the place of photorealistic art. The abundant and rich production of ceramics disappeared and people used simple cups made of wood. After 1000 years, Europe would return to a vibrant world in 1400s AD.
@@oldi184 Certainly, the triumph of Christianity had much to do with the erosion of the old Greco-Roman civilization, though the move towards austerity and stylization in art also had impetus from Neoplatonism, which cultivated the same low regard for earthly matters (Plotinus was noted for his indifference to having any portrait made of him, expressing antipathy to his earthly form). One finds this same kind of eschewal of worldly concerns in Gnosticism.
L to all Misogynists in the comment section *Unlimited Copium Works* Under the rule of Women, Christianity flourished and managed to conquer the World It was Three Queens and Two Emperors who influenced Four Patriarchs to create s belief system the world would follow for the next 1500 years No other religion has this much contribution of Women 👸☦️✝️💪♀️
Everyone calls out Romes' misogyny and yet....name me one queen or empress before Irene ...not counting ones from thousands of years ago. Women were pretty much treated the same in varying degrees all around Europe and most of the world until the 20th century. Women couldn't even vote in the US until 1920....Aurellians' wife was empress for a time but didn't do anything. And we still haven't had a female president.
When power was mostly about armies, war and violence, of course that leaders were mostly held by men. It was unfair, but natural. Today, we are living in a world, with much less violence than before, so it's only natural that women are given far more responsibilities than before.
@@mrsupremegascon I wouldn't say with much less violence. There are probably far more wars going on today than you know, and the military-industrial complexes seen in virtually every powerful nation indicates the need for military power
Not true. Ancient Rome and some of ancient greek city-states are rightfully called out. In ancient world there wasnt developed yet idea of egalitarianism but ancient Rome and cities like Athens were indeed one of the most misogynistic societies of that time. Compare how romans treated their woman and what laws they had with for example how ancient persians treated their woman and what was legal status of ancient persian women. Treatment of women (and treatment and interaction between other social gropus like free-people, serfs, slaves etc.) differed very much between cultures and societies. As for queens before Irene, here are some names (and most are younger than tousands years ago, the oldest examples are from egypt): Egypt: Merneith, Sobekneferu, Hatshepsut, Neferneferuaten, Tawosret, Cleopatra II, Berenice III, Berenice IV, Cleopatra VI, Cleopatra VII filopator (these are alone female rulers of egypt, if I included ptolemeic co-rulers of egypt, list would be much longer) Septimia Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, conquered roman Egypt Nubia: Shanakdakhete, Amanirenas (defeated romans), Amanishaketo, Nawidemak, Amanitore, Amanikhatashan, Patrapeamani, Amanipilade, Persian satraps of greek states: Artemisia I of halicarnassus/Caria (she took part in second persian invasion on greece), Artemisia II of Caria (she took over rhodes and latmus), Ada of Caria (first as persian satrap, later adopted Alexander the Great and he accepted her as ruler of caria), Mania of Dardania, Amastris of Heraclea Teuta from Ilyria ("pirate queen"); Caeria of Illyria (daughter of Philip II of Macedon); Deidamia II of Epirus; Aba tyrant of Olba; Pythodoris of Pontus (Roman client state) Tomyris queen of Massagetae (according to Herodotus defeated and killed Cyrus the Great, which probably isn't true, but she is 100% true historical person), Seleucids: Cleopatra Thea/Euteria, Parthians: Thea Musa, sassanids: Purandokht Half-mythical/unidentified: Queen of Sheba (queen Bilqīs); Semiramis (half-mythical figure but based on real queen Sammu-ramat who was reigning as regent); female ruler from sumerian king list: Kubaba; mysterius Lady of the lions (Beit Shemesh?), Jewish female rulers: Athaliah, Salome Alexandra, Salome I, Livia Tuareg/berber: Tin Hinan, Kahina (defeated Umayyad forces during Arab conquest) Arabic female rulers: Tanukhids: Mavia; Female rulers of Qedarites: Zabibe, Samsi, Yatie, Te'el-hunu, Tabua Celtic, germanic: Cartimandua, Elen Luyddog, Fritigil Queen of the Marcomanni Boudica, Trưng sisters, Lady Triệu, (leaders of rebelion against Rome in britain and han china in vietnam) African: Kabara-female monarchs of Daura emirate (hausa people), like: Kufuru, Ginu, Yakumo; Benin empire: Emose, Orrorro Asian: Korea: Queen Seondeok of Silla, Jindeok of Silla, Jinseong of Silla Queen Anula of Anuradhapura, Sivali of Anuradhapura, Queen Soma of funan, Camadevi Chinese Empress Wu-Zetian Japanese Empress Jingū, Himiko, Suiko, (and emress regents: Toyo, Kōgyoku, Jitō, Genmei, Genshō, Kōken) Tibetan "Kingdom of Women", maybe Sumpa/Supi: (for example: Supi Mojie, Dajiawa, Qibangsun, Tangpangshi) Ancient/early medieval america: Che'enal, Lady Yopaat, Lady K’awiil Ajaw, Ix Yohl Ik'nal, Sak K'uk', Lady K'abel, Unen Bahlam
And Rome lasted far longer than any of those civilizations. It was Traditional and Masculine from 753 BC -> 1453 AD. This fact makes you modernists seethe, the fact is why does liberalism lead to the death of civilization. You can't even reproduce, you have to replace yourselves with mass amounts of immigrants (who're religious and don't believe in "feminism"). That's a sign of a dying civilization. So much for "muh heckin soyience"
Mysogyny in a slave holding society? Is your moralistic speech meant to be comical and irionic? The poor Roman women restricted to owning humans but prevented from dying in dynastic wars. If only justice could have occurred an women bullied household slaves and died on the field of Mars!
@@maxhanney4277 no, he isn't mad. He's just saying that accusations of misogyny against ancient and medieval societies are clouded by 20th century liberalist and marxist doctrines in the west, that support radical equality between the genders. Serapeum is using such dialectic, not even a minute into the video. That's why all women (in this case an empress) are somehow treated as perpetual victims of men but the farmers, builders, serfs and soldiers are somehow privileged oppressors.
I believe so: it's the Augustus of Prima Porta, which was originally a bronze statue cast in roughly 20 BC, before a marble copy of it (the one we have today) was created sometime before AD 29.
Well, the dynasty of Leo III and his descendents is traditionally called 'Isaurian', but Leo was not from Isauria, instead his family hailed from Germanicaea in Syria before they were transplanted over to Thrace. So, really, they are Syrian - as such they are also called the 'Syrian' dynasty by scholars and I find that to be a more appropriate name.
@@Serapeum oh you're right actually, in that case I revoke my earlier objection! Thanks for explaining that, I'm just used to it being called the Isaurian and because the two words are pretty similar I got confused, I wasn't entirely certain if I heard you right. Nice work by the way, you just earned another subscriber.
TWO Nicephorus enemies one at start of her personal Reign the Uncle of her son tries to depose her and her son leads to First of Two Unforgettable Christmas Day events After forcing all Five bad uncles to become Clerics so they could not marry she forced them to serve her and her son on First Unforgettable Christmas Day of their humiliation Second Unforgettable Christmas 801 AD when news reached Constantinople A new Emperor had been chosen in West Charlemagne Not seen in West since Tragedy of Emperor Valentinian III murder 455 AD grandson of Theodosius The Great through his mother Galla Placidia of Ravenna Church fame followed by several puppet emperors of Arian Goth Ricimer last of which Romulus Augustulus was deposed 476 AD
You were starting to pick up the discussion of the Carolingian to the Roman Empire. Can you pick it up again? Eventually the Roman Empire in the East would politically concede somewhat to a limited Carolingian claim.Could you pick up the Controversy known as "the Problem of Two Emperors"?
Zacharias Papantoniou (Greek: Ζαχαρίας Παπαντωνίου) was a Greek writer. He was born in Karpenissi of Evrytania in February 1877 and died in Athens in 1940. He spent the first years of his life in Granitsa, where his father was a teacher. Apart from a writer, he was also a journalist. Many of the works of Zacharias Papantoniou, unfortunately, are censored because they tell the truth on Greek history. In that censored group is also the book, ''The King Otto''. Below we state a fragment from this book: ''The young Prince for first time come in Athens on January 25, 1833, he hardly heard anyone speak in Greek and so he asked: "Where are the Greeks in Athens?" His court looked at each other and answered: "There are no Greeks, but do not be troubled because this Albanian population will always be faithful to your monarchy."
@@chideraalexanderdex547 He can pronounce it any way he wants. But what is point of pronouncing non-English words incorrectly, when both ways are not English, so no advantage to being incorrect? The worst thing is spreading incorrectness to beginners who don't know.
Not the worst, but not a good one by far. Most of the good work was the convention of the council and recolonization of Greece, which was done by her eunuch and magister militum.
Not even close. Eirene was a monster but the empire was stronger by the time she was finished with it. If she’d just kept Constantine VI locked up and maintained the loyalty of her eunuchs the empire would’ve been stable and strong by the time she died
@@thedemonhater7748 my professor told me she empowered the dinatos(land owners) so much and granted them tax exemptions to the point of weakening the theme army and emptying the empire's gold reserves. She wasnt the worse either, but he called her the "dragon queen"
If that marriage between Charlemagne and Irene went through, Rome would've been saved. The Franks had large numbers of soldiers, who were basically just doing nothing after they conquered Germania and Northern Italy. Irene should've secretly agreed, traveled to Rome in the pretext of meeting with the Pope, get the Pope to officiate the wedding, and have Charlemagne and his massive army march on down to Constantinople. If the Byzantine aristocracy rejects it, Charlemagne's army can just as easily depose them. And yes, it would lead to a unified Empire, since the Franks would then be protecting the eastern borders of Byzantium, while the Byzantines can pay for this protection with books about Roman science and architecture, which are far more valuable than gold. Not only would it secure the Empire's eastern flank, but it would jumpstart the Renaissance 700 years early. Too bad the Byzantines were too racist and arrogant to accept such a union, despite the fact that Caesar during the Republican days had no problems packing the Senate with Gauls.
I've always wondering if such a thing could ever work too, but it seems doubtful. For Irene to travel in secret to meet Charlemagne would have resulted in the immediate appearance of a pretender (probably Nikephoros). Absentee rulers rarely rule for long. Also, I doubt whether Charlemagne would actually even attempt an attack on Constantinople, requiring as it would a risky invasion that would strain his supply lines and require him to spend years abroad. The diversion of so many military resources to the east would leave the lands of his own empire weakened, and I can well imagine the Byzantines making good use of diplomacy to stir up troublesome tribes along the Frankish frontier. All-in-all, I think it would result in a chaotic, indecisive conflict between the two Empires, leaving resentment and disorder as its only legacies. Irene was unpopular before, and bringing a Frankish army down upon Byzantium would only anger her subjects more - I can imagine many nobles leading resistance movements; it would be a massive hurdle for Charlemagne to ensure Irene's rule without destroying Byzantium in the the process. And history has already shown us what the Byzantines do when faced with Frankokratia. I really can't see much good arising from this. TL;DR - Long distances between Empires makes war hard; big risks with dubious gains. (I just want to add that I really appreciate long comments like yours which invite more discussions, so thanks! :)
@@Serapeum I respectfully disagree. Byzantium is already wracked with civil wars and disorder with repeat coup attempts, and Charlemagne becoming Emperor was no different from Caesar packing the Roman Senate with Gauls. That, and the Franks were rather wealthy themselves, and with the Church supporting them, I can imagine Irene and Charlemagne using Church funds to bribe more than a few prominent noble and aristocratic families to accept Irene and Charlemagne as their new rulers. The alternative would be Charlemagne decapitating them just as he did to the Germanic pagans, so even the snobbiest of snobs would rather take a paycheck and kneel rather than lose their heads. That, and the local populace couldn't give less of a damn about this than anything. When the 1204 Crusade came along and sacked the capital, the nobles were horrified, but the agrarian farmers outside of Constantinople rejoiced, because the new Crusader administration lowered taxes and even sold the estates of the nobles to commoners for cheap-as-chips prices. If they didn't give a shit about some random Venetians and Franks seizing the throne, then they wouldn't give a shit about a Frank who actually married the Empress legally taking the throne via marriage. The Byzantine nobility and aristocracy were a pain in the ass of the Empire anyways, as their intrigues and power-plays destroyed the Empire. Forcing them to heel or eradicating them for good would've saved the Empire in the long run. Basil II's great victories were undone by their shenanigans. Thank you for these conversations. They are a great source of insight and somewhat fun for a history buff like me.
HolyknightVader999 "Roman" science and architecture??? Byzantium's science and architecture was predominantly Hellenistic Greek! Even Rome's itself iconic buildings were often build by Hellenistic architects and engineers (i.e. the Roman Pantheon - that's a Greek word, mind you - was designed by Apollodorus of Damascus)! The Romans actually were "brutes" in respect to the Greeks, the Egyptians, and many middle eastern people back then! Thus, the "Roman science and architecture" thing is a mere joke!
@@ThomasGazis The Greeks were just as brutish. While the Athenians were the ones who sought philosophy, beauty, and perfection, others such as the Macedonians and Spartans were brutish thugs. The Spartans menaced the other Greek city-states, while the Macedonians plagued the Jews for decades. Also, Roman architecture went beyond just buildings-their aqueducts and roads were far superior to their Greek counterparts, and their version of a Republic is what lives on today with America and many other republics. So to dismiss the Romans as brutes is completely foolish.
@@HolyknightVader999 first of all, you seem to be a troll! Your youtube account is almost void of content (except from a couple "Mandalorian purge" videos) and provides no info at all about you! So, you seem to be one of the cronies serving the usual anti Greek-Byzantine "atzzeennttaa"! I didn't say that there was no "brute" element within the ancient Greeks at all! Indeed there was some, especially among the Spartans and the Macedonians, exactly as you mention! What I actually said though was that the Romans were "brutes" IN RESPECT to the Greeks! And that's absolutely true! You see, we might call i.e. the Macedonian Greeks "brutes", but on the other hand they created one of the most sophisticated civilizations in history, the "Hellenistic" civilization - within the limits of the immense Hellenistic empire, which seemed to be the limits of the entire known civilized world, back then! You see, Alexander the Great was not just slaughtering his enemies, usurping their assets (as the Mongolian/Turkic tribes - and to some extent the Romans too - used to do!). He actually created from scratch entire cities, highly civilized cities with theaters, libraries, advanced urban planning etc. all over his empire! He spread the open minded, enlightened, curious, scientific, fond of learning, humanistic Greek spirit all over his empire! He even massively married his Greek Macedonian officers to local women (Persian etc.) in order to create an amalgamated empire - and not a purely Greek-Macedonian one! The Romans did NONE of the kind! They didn't even come close to Alexander's spirit (upon which the entire Hellenistic civilization is founded on!) They had built impressive constructions alright, but using often "Hellenistic cultured" architects and engineers! And even there they didn't come close to what the Hellenistic civilization had achieved! Maybe you forget i.e. that the Hellenistic architects and engineers had built a humongous to the standards of that era "sky-scraper" (the Alexandria "Pharus" - lighthouse) long BEFORE the Romans buit their aqueducts or their Collosseum? And we are just talking of the Macedonians here - and how culturally superior they were to the Romans! So, do you want me to mention now how much the ancient Athenians were culturally superior to the Romans? Is there the slightest chance that such a comparison might hold any water? So, definitely the Romans were "brutes" in respect to the Greeks!
Misogyny is not just hatred of women. Its discrimination, prejudice, oppression of women and the seeing of women as lesser than men. In this case the romans were Misogynistic. Since women were seen as lesser and seen as the property of men. And the roman women had less rights than men.
R. Pe they don't care for the historical truth! The only thing they care for is to promote their "leftist", anti Greek-Byzantine atzzeennntaaa, that Byzantium was "Roman" with no Greek constituents!!!!
This retarded argument has been debunked several times. I can do it again for you: The Greeks of Eastern Rome are Roman because... -in 212, Caligula granted citizenship to all free inhabitants of the Roman Empire (incl. the Greeks). -Greek was not a foreign language to the Latin Romans, it was since the late Republic, the lingua franca of the Roman East. Many ancient emperors like Augustus, Nero, Marcus Aurelius, Hadrian, Septimius Severus, Heliogabalus, Gallienus, Constantine (half-Greek), Constantius, Julian, Valens and Theodosius spoke Greek as a 2nd language. -Since Greek and Latin existed side by side, they influenced each other. Medieval Greek had a lot of Latin loanwords. -Roman titles like Imperator (Autokrator), Magister Militum (Monostrategos), Patricius (Patrikios), Caesar (Kaisar), Nobilissimus (Nobelissimos), Magister (Magistros), Consul (Hypatos) and many others continued to be used in the Roman court. -Up to the 4th crusade, the empire had a senate (Synkletos). -The imperial title and court was inherited by Constantine and wasn't fully abolished until 1453. -Politically, the state was undoubtedly Roman and was still recognized as such by the Catholic West during Irene's time. The Arabs (and other Muslims) and most of the Slavs never ceased recognizing them as Romans. -When Moesia was retaken by Basil II in the early 11th century, the Romance-speaking Vlachs (medieval Thraco-Romans) were still living there with the Bulgarians, whom they helped in the rebellion against East Rome in 1186. -Before the reform of Alexios Komnenos, the Solidus coin (nomisma) was in continous use. -If you read the histories of Constantine Manasses, the Eastern Romans knew about the founding of Rome, the Roman Republic and the early pagan Emperors. Especially Augustus, who ruled during Christ's birth. -Latin names like Hadrianus (Adrianos), Constantinus (Konstantinos), Maximus (Maximos), Antonius (Antonios), Julia (Ioulia) continued to be used and are thus common in Greece today. -Roman law (Theodosian codex) was upheld after 476, then updated by Justinian's codex and later by the Basilica of Basil I. In summary, the Greeks were culturally romanized and possessed a legal claim, that other kingdoms didn't and are thus true inheritors of Roman civilization! Rhomaioi means Romans in Greek and nothing else.
Interestingly, the Muslims called the Latin Crusaders of France and the HRE "Franj", meaning "Franks" and the Byzantines were called "Rumis" meaning "Romans".
@@Michael_the_DrunkardYep, in fact if you call the ERE emperors "Emperor of the Greeks", it's a one-way trip to prison. Bishop Liutprand of Cremona learned it the hard way.
