I love how the narrator walks around in constantinople dressed fully in russian orthodox robes and talks to himself with all the people around him turning their heads and staring at him. First historic russian documentary I've seen, and I must say it's very well done. On par with BBC. +1
It is an act of courage to go about dressed as Christian clergy in Muslim Istanbul, that's why people are staring. From my understanding, most priests walk in civilian clothing there, out of caution and to avoid possible retaliation from the local population.
excellent documentary. amazing how it seems that the world has forgotten all about this once glorious empire and how precisely history repeats itself. kudos to the film makers!
For those who have limited knowledge of history: the ancient Russian State originated in the 9th century. It was the ancient Pagan traditions, but the State was precisely modeled on the Byzantine Empire, which was the main trading partner of ancient Russia. In the 13 century Rus survived the invasion of the Tatars and vassal of their State, but the Russians have preserved their religion and culture and never interrupted trade and cultural relations with Byzantium. During this time, the Rus Princes dynasty unified rules coming from Rurik. In the 15th century the Grand Duke Ivan 3 announcing Russia as an independent State, married the Byzantine Princess - the last heiress the сrown of the Byzantine Empire and made the symbol of Russian State emblem of the Byzantine Empire. Then Russia was announced as the third Rome-the last independent bastion and keeper of Eastern Christianity. Pope in orthodoxy - heretic and usurper. In 19 century Russia almost recaptured Constantinople from the Turks. She wanted to revive the Byzantine Empire, but the States of West and Central Europe for fear of power of Russia under the threat of war forced her to abandon those intentions.
Hedeby Trading post was the most trade with Rus. Byzantine trade not until 11th c. True about Russia could have won back Constantinople but could they keep it is question.
In my country there are several runestones of men who lived and died in "Greece". The Varangian guard, loyal to death. I am proud of this historical link between Sweden and Greece as I cannot stop to read about and being drawn to the history of Byzantium. αθάνατοι!
No wonder why many viewers are shocked by this. Although this is true that this were used for bias, there are many facts that most of us Westerners completely lack of information since we are so into our own Roman self magnification. It is true that the first nominally university is Pandidakterion of Constantinopolis which many of its students taught Western monks and intellectuals in Carolingian Empire (8th cents), igniting the so called Carolingian Renaissance. Though its management are differ with our university (which was influenced by Church management and scholasticism movement in 12th cents), it was the first state sponsored educational and well managed institution which in turn were absence in the ancient academies (ancient academies lack of concrete management system and funds were collected from endowment by the rich or benevolence of the ruler). Other contribution is the codification of Corpus Iuris Civilis, the foundation of the current civil laws which countries like Germany, France, and Russia adopted (Romans didnt codify its laws surprisingly). Also, preservation and innovation of art, architecture, literature, theatrical performance, library, science, technologies, musics, and also medical managements were done by ERE. The medieval rulers were adamant of ERE cultures and powers hence they always styled themselves as ERE emperors. Even solidus/nomismata were the dollar of the Middle Age. The 4th Crusade was conducted by Venezia and Genoa in 1204 on the basis of the onslaught of its citizens inside Constantinople by the weak Andronikos I Komnenos. The Pope wanted the 4th crusaders to go to Middle East but Doge Enrico Dandolo encouraged the contingent instead to Constantinople to avenge Latin's massacre in 1182. This is the sad part committed by crusaders but also the result of weakness of Andronikos. I say if we want to understand our modern development, us Westerners, have to learn more about ERE rather than focusing much in our own Western historical development. Many could be learned from ERE/Byzantine Empire.
+Aotearoa Seniores ...Westerns no invented nothing they discovered greeks tour de force,when greeks been in 400BC they been in 1400BC.I tell in simple way, since the day of Aristotele's how many steps go ahead the Philosophy??--who understand,..understood--something for byzantines ,.when Istanbul(don't worry is greek word) fallen in turks, starting -out the Renaissance..i believe in some years the westerns wiil be learning that all starts from superstar civilisation of germans even Nietzsche-Holderlin-Heidegger-Goethe- shout for truth
Edwin Pace Academia didnt have the same organizations, it was more like loosely managed individual academics. Yes they are continuing the tradition, but pandidakterion somehow was more influential on the development of later scholasticism and learning institutions throughout medieval to modern day.
"The 4th Crusade was conducted by Venezia and Genoa in 1204 on the basis of the onslaught of its citizens inside Constantinople by the weak Andronikos I Komnenos." What have the citizens of Zara do to the Venetians to deserve the sack of Zara before the Venetians even came to Consantinople? Dont try to justify Venetian actions and attocities as a retribution when in fact those slaughtered Latins deserve that slaughter because they have been stealing from the Byzantine people right before their own eyes for years. Andronikos did the right thing. He expelled the Latins who were stealing from the Greeks and those who were caught were slaughtered. Every Crusader even before the 4th Crusade who passed through the Eastern Roman Empire was stealing and pillaging. Even Peter the Hermit pillaged until The Emperor shipped them to Asia Minor. Those Latins were opportunists trying to exploit and steal from the Greek people thanks to Manuel's Western wife's initiative to sign the Golden Bull That gave Latin's "legal" rights to take over Greek property. So the people themselves slaughtered those Venetian merchants it wasnt a command given by Andronikos. Dandolo just used that as an excuse. First and foremost the Latins had no business exploiting the Empire so they deserved their deaths. What Dandolo did later was unspeakable and he did it to others without even an excuse. Ask the people of today's Zadar.
I can't think of a better person to present a show about Byzantium than Bishop Tikhon. Orthodox clergy have a unique way of explaining things that suits this documentary very well. (He must be speaking very quickly because the English translator is stumbling over his words just to keep up!) I love to listen to our local priest (Gr.Odox) talk about history; such a unique perspective in today's USA. Thanks for the great film! 👍👍
They're not blaming the West for everything. Quote from the film: "Of course, it's senseless to say that the West was to blame for Byzantium's misfortunes and fall... Byzantium's historical blows occurred when the Byzantines themselves betrayed their own principles upon which their Empire was established..."
This video offers the best analysis I've ever had the chance to follow on the raise and fall of the Byzantine Empire, its relation to the Western European medieval powers, Islam and the translation of its Orthodox Christian values to the "Third Rome" Russia. Indeed Russia inherented the Byzantine Legacy and nowdays the Russian people returned to these immortal God given values of Christianism after 70 years of communist spiritual oblivion. Without Byzantium and its over a millenium defence of the Greco-Christian Civilization (Humanism and Faith in Christ), we don't know if Europe or the West would have survived as evoluted and refined civilizations. The video isn't bias, as somebody has claimed here, but it would have been bias if it wasn't as presented.
As a humble admirer of Roman history and culture, I can't help but to cry the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire. This documentary helped me to understand better the all the real motives of this historical event: not only the greed and envy of the Western powers and the encroachment of the Ottoman Turks but the fateful fracture of the so called Byzantine society itself determined the inevitable fall of the Empire. As a Roman Catholic, I deplore and condemn the treacherous attack of the 4th "crusade" upon the sacred city of Constantinople...
Fascinating to hear the Russian perspective on the fall of Byzantium. Most Western historians wouldn't place much emphasis on religion, capitalism, or the state becoming less centralized and authoritarian as the reasons for Byzantium's downfall. Nor on banking, as Constantinople becoming one of the first victims of predatory banking didn't really begin until long after 1204, well into the empire's terminal decline. I think Western historians have a more unbiased perspective (at least modern historians do... the age of Edward Gibbon's description of Byzantium as a long, continuous tale of pathetic decline having fallen out of favor over the past century). However, we don't focus enough on the role of selfish elites in bringing about an empire's downfall, and this documentary does well to point out how the selfish elites brought on the ruin of their own homeland by constant civil wars, employing foreign troops to fight their wars, dodging taxes, ignoring the demographic health of the empire, resorting to short-term solutions, etc. etc.
Actually Western hisotrians have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to Eastern Roman Empire. All Western contemporary chronicles are based on the Vatican's view of the Eastern Roman Empire and their view is filled with hate that last to this very day. The West is negatively predisposed towards anything Orthodox to this very day. Take Russia, Serbia, Greece, Armenia. All these spiritual successors of Byzantium are seen through negative western lenses. It is generally agreed by every historian western or eastern that the fall was direct result of the 4th Crusade's plundering since it has been a historical fact that after that event the Empire never even made an effort to restore itself. The same plunder this man explains happens as we speak rn with Eastern European countries being under the control of the EU. Wealth and natural resources have been extracted from Eastern Europe and the population of every country has nothing to show for. they are all plunged in debts and not a single monumental construction project in any Eastern European country has been conducted since the fall of the USSR. Every single of these countries is in major debts and financial turmoil, ruled by oligarchs while Western companies maintain monopoly over every resource of a given country. Every single major company and factory that is worth anything in eastern Europe has been bought by Western European companies. The Germans rule the telecommunications networks of every single of these countries and these countries cant even maintain the infrastructure built during communist times yet alone undertake some big building project. how pathetic is that that they cant even maintain what the commies built. 30 years have passed since capitalism came in Eastern Europe and not a single of these countries has anything to show for. They all have tremendous debt/Gdp ratios and falling birth rates. Some even negative ones like Bulgaria while Germany is getting richer and richer by the day. They export food with lower quality to Eastern European markets. There is a reason why greece went bankrupt. The same reason this guy explains. Foreing interference in domestic economies never brings anything positive.
Yes, well except some of it simply isn't true, the part about capitalism and banking for example is simply incorrect. The explanation for the decline of the empire is also unconvincing. The Western perspective of Byzantium has long been problematic but this "documentary" is propaganda for the current Russian regime. They are trying to draw rather crude parallels with modern Russia, as well as claim the Byzantine heritage versus the West. It's not history, it's remaking the past to fit the present. There's no reason to be reading Gibbon, there's far better books on both Rome and Byzantium these days.
Germans named the Eastern Roman Empire as "Byzantine Empire". Why is that? Because they wanted the title "Roman Empire" for themselves, the "Holy Roman Empire" born in 962. They had a conflict with the Eastern Emperor in Constantinople, especially after Otto's son Otto II (r. 967-983) adopted the designation "imperator Romanorum". Still, Otto formed marital ties with the east when he married the Byzantine princess Theophanu.
True words brother. Byzantine Empire never existed. The term Byzantine its a trick invented from the Western Europeans to steal the romam heritage from the Greeks. There were never such a think as Byzantines, just Greeks who became Romans and ruled the leftover Romam empire for almost 1000 years. There were always only one Kaiser of Rome and hes Throne were in Konstantinopel. Ζήτω ή Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων
@@ΛεωνάνδροςΠεργαμενός Byzantium was not just Greeks. Stop nationalizing The Roman Empire. There were Slavs living it in too and Latins. Greeks werent even the majority
Hopefully the Third Rome, i.e. Moscow, will learn from the errors of Byzantium and continue to curtail and punish the Oligarchs and strengthen the central state for the protection and benefit of the people.
+Lord HiggleBottum the only ties the Russians can claim the Turks can also claim is blood ties. The Turk that conquered Constantinople was a Grandson of a previous Emperor I believe
Charles N No mate the Turks came from Central Asia, but the Romans didn't really have a race they had a culture and Idea which was the beauty of Rome. The "Byzantines" or later Romans were Greeks which is why there was instability when a non-Greek rose to the Imperial throne. That is like saying the North Africans weren't a race they just converted to Islam, which isn't true they came, conquered and brought peoples to move in to recently conquered territory
+Nathan Palmer I in fact was genuinely interested asking these questions and wanting to engage. this must be an absolute rarity now on youtube. here we go have a blast: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people
Hadn't be for that "Christian Regime" there wouldn't have be any empire at all. Even the use of the greek language was because of tradition, since it had always dominated the region since Alexander the Great's Empire days.
Alexandros Augo No I don't. They didn't view themselves as Greeks, rather Romans (Romaioi) and were politically a continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire.
True, Byzantium as an earthly empire did end, but its spiritual ideals (so often contradicted by the Byzantine emperors and priests themselves) live on in the Eastern Orthodox churches. All across the world, thousands of ordinary people continue to follow the ancient spiritual way of the Byzantines, which is now finding new life in Russia - which from the beginning took Byzantine Christianity to its heart - in across the world. What really fell in Constantinople was an empire, the earthly aspect of Byzantium, which, despite all its religious rites, images and great churches, was like all empires innately corruptible and doomed to fall (as are the powerful corrupt, self-serving governments of this world today). But the beauty, the richness and intense devoutness of the spiritual life in its pure form remains alive and with us still.
I, for one, think this is a very interesting documentary. I like hearing different perspectives on the same subjects. I have watched documentaries on the fall of Byzantium made by the BBC, the History channel, by Turkish television, by Greek television and now this one, from a clearly Russian perspective. There are many interesting concepts vented here. Many of them new to me, as any new perspective is bound to be. One thing is clear. We should all try to understand reality as seen by the perspective of others, even if we disagree with it. The failure of people to get along with people that see reality in a different perspective is a personal failure. When transported to governments, it's cause for wars and strife and is at the root of most conflicts. I am not a religious individual and am always amazed by the destruction (and construction) produced by religion and a faith. Especially because it comes between people working out their differences in a rational manner. The need to impose a belief system upon others is amazing to me. And the poorer and more uneducated a society is, the greater this need.
Couldn't agree more. In my twenties I remember thinking it'd be cool to speak another language but it would have very little utility or practicality. And now 10 to 15 years later I think of how ignorant that statement was and this is one of the many reasons it's hard to find documentaries from diverse perspectives on historical events with out speaking two plus languages
I am an enthusiast on greco-roman culture and I love documentaries about the byzantine empire. I do respect both the presenter and the script writer, but I did found some incoherences in the documentary (1) the Byzantine empire under the rule of Justinian I reached its maximum extension in the sixth century; (2) Successive wars with the Sassanids (Persians) and the Arabs, along with plague and climate changes greatly reduced the population in the empire, making it hard to rule from Constantinople ; (3) Interistingly the empire reached its economic peak under Basil II (macedonian dinasty) in the elenth century, when the empire shrinked to just Greece, The Balkans and Anatolia; (4) Venice always considered itself a vassal of the Byzantine empire, and the control of Byzantine's commerce was a reward for their military help (naval) against the Normans, and a treaty was signed; (5) The byzantine state lost a lot of money with this agreement, so it decided to unilaterally break the contract and keep Venetian merchants as hostage; (6) The 4th crusade was intended to free Alexandria from the Arabs, but the forces were deviated to Constantinople by the pretender prince Alexios Angelos, who promissed food and money for the crusaders and due payments/hostage release to the Venetians; (7) Because prince Alexios Angelos coukdn't keep his promise, latin knights took over and sacked Constantinople and splitted the country into numerous smaller states; (8) At this point the Byzantine empire had already lost most of Anatolia in the Byzantine-Seljuq wars (before the 4th crusade, see Battle of Manzikert), where much of its manpower and food production was; (9) At this point, trade from Asia had been deviated to Alexandria, and Constantinople lost most of its revenues; (10) The recovery of the Byzantine empire after these blows would still had been possible if the turks weren't allowed to conquer Gallipoli and Thrace, due to deficient bizantine defenses; (11) At the time Constantinople was besieged by Sultan Mehmet II there were more soldiers defending it than actual citizens, and the wealthiest of them were Venitian and Genoese merchants; (12) Sultan Mehmet II just wanted to conquer the city and even proposed to Emperor Constantine XI to surrender the city in exchange for his life and a ruling position in Mitra, south Greece; (13) After the walls of Constantinople were breached, eyewitnesses recount that Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos actually led a suicidal charge to the turks with the surviving soldiers, ending up dying in the process (legends say he was saved by and angel and transformed into a marble statue, that watched over Constantinople); (14) Renaissance and the Humanitarian movement in Western Europe were motivated by Byzantine scholars long before Constantinople had fallen; (15) The Byzantine empire preserved and developed greco-roman culture, innovations and technology that was later used both by Western Europe and the turks to become the superpowers they ended up becoming.
1. First and Foremost it was under Justinian I not II that the Empire reached its biggest extent and it was the 6th century. 3. Basil the Second ruled in the 11th century. You have literally no idea what you are taling about.
@@robotube7361 I might had the dates wrong and the number (yeah, I not II). Apart from that, I respect your opinion. From your lack of counter-arguments, I believe you have nothing more of value to add. Am I wrong? Finally, I have corrected the comment. Thank you for the feedback ;)
"Byzantiym" was an extention of the roman empire, they themselfs called them Romans and the roman empire. The name Byzantium was given by the catholics in the 1500 hundreds. So it was an state/kingdom/republic/empire that survived for 2206 years
I did not know that after Constantinople fell that Mehmet asked the well off residents why more resources were not given to the defenders. He did not like their answer and their heads were chopped off.
Very well filmed. But Justinian was a Roman emperor. This video is about the Roman Empire. German historians only much later, well after 1453, dubbed it "Byzantium" ... The inhabitants called themselves Roman and Constantinople was founded by Roman emperor Constantine.
I think the fall is a real shame, its no surprise that byzantium is not really covered much in history books, and here in australia there is no mention of it whatsoever in the history books, its a huge embarrassment for the westerners involved in its demise. Had they embraced their multiculturalism and not been weakened and survived the crusades attacks and not fallen to the turks, constantinople could of become like a new atlantis.
Here in the United States of America (spoiler: our public education is not the greatest) it's usually just tagged onto the end of a sentence. Like "The Roman Empire fell in the mid 5th century, although it continued with the Byzantines in the East." Like, seriously, that's about it.
That was an interesting documentary. I never even begin to see the Byzantines in that sort of light. I feel like byzantine history was merely Justinian and then skip to fall of a great city. Interesting to see how other people react to the same history and what kind of conclusion they can make.
Is it just me or did someone notice a little deja vu in the relation between the west and the Greeks, then and today. Also, the Greeks and their oligarchies.
Saying that the Byzantine empire wasn't a Greek empire is like saying that the Ottoman empire wasn't a Turkish empire..Sure both empires were multinational but The Greek element was dominant and outnumbered the rest of nationalities in the byzantine empire..Let alone the official language of the empire was the greek one. After all the city of Byzantium was found by ancient Greeks .I don't see how Greek arrogance was a factor for the empire to be destroyed...the Bulgarians and the rest of slavs betrayed and stood against the empire many times during its history..Basil the second the BULGARSLAYER slayed the Bulgarian army that was pillaging the peloponese...The bulgars were never friends of the empire...more like defeated by them and unwillingly became subjects of the byzantine emperor later on. They deserved it. This documentary is a Slavic propaganda .Apparently...
Heaven CanWait I agree with you ...Russian propaganda against the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The “Byzantines” never call themselves “Byzantine”. .. they called themselves Roman and spoke Greek. The Greeks were dominant indeed. Russia is the spiritual successor of Byzantium?! That is arrogance indeed
It was Greek in the sense that it was Greek-speaking, but it was definitely Roman and to say that it was not is also a gross falsification of history. The Roman Empire after 476 AD has been subjected to a propaganda campaign which began in the 8th century AD and has not ended yet to our age.
If Russia cared so much then why did the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Empire fall? Russia is not part of anything Byzantine other than sharing an Orthodoxy religion. The Byzantine's capital was Constantinople, NOT Moscow. The so-called Byzantine Empire was a Greek-oriented remnant of the whole Roman Empire when the Latin-oriented West fell.
Russia was influenced vastly by Byzantium culture. Instead of conquering the Russians with military force the Byzantines used the glory of God and built churches in Russian lands which subdued them spiritually. The Russians use a Greek styled alphabet and a lot of Russian architecture is based off Byzantine styles. Even Moscow was called the Third Rome. The Russians see themselves as successors through that orthodoxy. I maybe wrong though.
How can you ask such a question?? Russia wasn't even a country back then, they had no military power to defend a whole empire. Inform yourself before asking such questions. O.o
TheInceptum Russia is simmilar to Tatars, because of the Tatars conquest in XIII century. As a result Russian Tsar was rather simmilar to Tatars Khan than to Bizantine emperor. Russia doesn't have a lot common features with Bizantine empire, they have a lot of simmilarities with Bizantine.
So many ignorant comments here! I wonder from what kind of sources they learn their history. I'm not Russian, but it's always been so obvious that Russia continues the Byzantine tradition - in faith, art, architecture etc. If it didn't, the whole of Christendom would have been the same nowadays instead of looking so different when comparing Orthodoxy with the Catholicism + the rest. It doesn't matter how it was back then, this is emphasizing that Russia got to save that heritage. Ignorance and hate are just lame... and never a sign of wit.
Alina H I could say that Russia has much more features of Tatars masters than Bizantine. In Russia has never existed freedom. There were never had rules of the law. Whole Russia was in hand of the Tsar. And it is typical to Tatars country than Bizantine.
We Eastern Christians before to accept Islam than Catholicism, we will never forget 1204.year when the devil servants from Venice attacked and destroyed the holy empire of Rome and brutally killed the Holy Emperor Isaac II Angel !!!
This program has reassured me about America and it station. I can see absolutely no paralle to the problems that lead to the decline and the issues of the US. It feels good to be reassured by programming.
The Russians have always thought of themselves as the heirs of Byzantium. This is not a new idea, it did not start with Putin. If you want to criticize a doc. please be specific. Otherwise you are not worth reading.
The only heirs of the Roman Empire of the East (Imperium Romanus, Imperium Romanorum, Romania/Rhomania) are the (Romanians(Românii), Greeks( Rhōmaîoi). Russians lie allot, and all this crap has little truth, and has no goal to present the history of the Romans, in fact is pure propaganda for Russians to fear the world and to raise them in an death cult who would allow Putin to raise armies.
I find it very difficult to follow this long documentary with all the constant loud music. I gave up at the 40 minute mark. What is it with this modern fascination of keeping the viewer constantly occupied and distracted with never ending loud music, sound effects, and video effects throughout the entire production? Do they do this in school now too? Do teachers and professors play loud music through the entire lecture to keep the students constantly distracted from the lesson?
+KonaCommuter yes you find the oldest music everywhere the local CVS to Funeral Parlor. also what's most distracting is the constant chatter by the archimandrite. I end up curiously listening to the archimandrite to hear similar work from him and the commentator saying in English
In my opinion this documentary is a perfect example of using distorted facts to suit an autocratic ideology, the likes of which Europe has only seen with military dictatorships. Scaring away people from innovation, making the people praise the past without learning from it and use it to build a better future, convincing people that the stability of a country depends on it having a permanent ruler, instill fear against foreigners, unite the people against a common enemy, ... are only a few examples I found in the documentary. To learn better about history, especially byzantine history, use multiple and impartial sources. In this case, learning more about Venice, The catholic church, Ancient middle east, Turks, the Roman empire and the Arabs will be helpful. As an enthusiast I can only ask you to keep an open mind, much like the Greeks before us and just like us here in the "barbaric" roman west.
Wow I never knew the russia s ayed such an important role in the early dark ages and medieval times and here I always thought the eastern empire was roman I'm glad they informed me of Byzantium Russian roots and the eastern empire didn't collapse they just picked up and moved to moscow
I can't believe how ignorant most people are around here. Just to clear this debate. Yes, the Eastern Roman Empire was not called Byzantine during its time. However, that does not mean that the Eastern Roman Empire was truly Roman/Latin. The Eastern Empire was essentially Greek, not Latin. Wikipedia: "Apart from the Imperial court, administration and military, the primary language used in the eastern Roman provinces even before the decline of the Western Empire was Greek, having been spoken in the region for centuries before Latin". The word Byzantium is just an alternate word to describe the Eastern Roman Empire. This doco uses 'Byzantine', others may use 'Eastern Roman'. Whatever, the word is not important. They are both correct. There's no need to make an insane OBSESSION out of a word. It is not Russian propaganda, both words are correct. The thing to remember is, whatever it's name was, the Empire was mainly Greek. The Eastern Empire economy was under Greek families control, not Roman in the sense that it was not led by a Latin class of aristocrats. This was Greek area and the Romans respected that. To put it simple for you, the Grand Roman Empire (before the split) had never been only Roman, but a mixture of Roman and Greek cultures, overlapping and mixing in a peaceful way. In the Eastern Roman Empire, the culture was Hellenistic, and the merchant class was Greek, and it remained so even under Ottoman rule. The money were in Greek hands. The only other important ethnicity were the Jews, but they were Hellenized themselves. The Eastern emperors were all ethnic Greeks. Check out their names: Heraclius, Komnenos, Alexius, Andronikos, Paleiologos and so on. For God's sake, just read the Wikipedia in tandem with this documentary. It has a list of all Byzantine Emperors. You can read, can you? Damn teenagers. And another thing: Greek influence was not restricted to Anatolia and Greece. The area of Greek influence comprised the whole Eastern Mediterranean, including now-Arab areas, like Cyrene, Palestine, Syria and Egypt. Egypt was par excellence the center of Greek culture, with Alexandria as it's glorious symbol, being the second most important city after Rome itself. The Greek influence in these areas lasted until the Arab invasion of the 7th century, when Greek (Byzantine) mostly agricultural economy was replaced by nomadic goat-herding, causing the destruction of agriculture and the irrigation systems that had made the area so rich. In those areas, Christianity was largely or totally wiped out and replaced by Islam. Strangely enough, Ottomans were less opressive than the Arabs, and Greeks not only were allowed to keep their religion, but their control over the economy was permitted until 1918.
+Српски Брат This is from the Wiki page for the Battle of Navarino (1827): "...the Greeks were economically critical [to the Ottomans] , as they dominated the Ottoman Empire's trade through their ownership of much of its merchant shipping. On a personal level, Mahmud considered the Greek revolt a monstrous betrayal by a conquered nation that had always been treated generously by the Porte. " "The fear of the Ottoman Sultan was ... liberation of all regions of the empire containing Greek majorities, including central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, Constantinople itself, western Anatolia, the Aegean islands and Crete and Cyprus, threatening the empire's very existence. " So in 1827, after about 500 years of Turkis Ottoman rule, the Ottoman Empire still featured many areas with heavy or even dominant Greek ethnic presence and of even greater economic importance. The Armenians were not so lucky, they were brutally murdered by the Young Turks in the infamous Armenian Genocide during WW1. With all ups and downs, the Greek community enjoyed a favourable situation, being allowed to retain ethnic majorities in key geographical areas, and control commerce in the Empire. While in some areas there was a process of islamisation, most Christian areas under Ottoman rule were allowed to retain their faith. Except for Bosnia and Albania, no other area in the Balkans was forced en masse to adopt Islam, and these two are small countries making up to something like 5% of the Christian Ottoman posessions. I'm not saying Ottoman rule was a good and tolerant one, far from it. Ottoman rule ment poverty, backwardness, huge taxes, corruption and opression. But it wasn't all evil, as it allowed most peoples under its rule to keep their national identity. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but many people tend to see everything in black or white.
Dominic Johnson Dude, the region was 100% populated with Serbs in 15th century. In 16th century the Ottoman Empire brings Albanians as loyal muslims to Kosovo. After numerous cleansings committed during the Ottoman rule Serbs made up 20% of the population in 20th century. After that communists bring Albanians to Kosovo and expell Serbs. In 1999 the cleansing continues during the NATO aggression. The cleansing continues further in 2004 under the command of UN and NATO peace-keeping forces. Serbs occupy 15% territory of Kosovo even today. Yeah, poor lil' Albos...
Српски Брат What about the thousands of Albanians killed and expelled under Milosevic's rain as president? Brat I'm not against you I'm only curious and asking questions. Serbs are the nicest people I've ever met. Kosovo je Srbija zauvek!
The West is about as healthy as Byzantium was by the 1400s--the focus on a general population decline is probably the most real fear here, and corruption is a big part of this time as well. The Constitution is, sadly, a purely optional document. As a lover of history and of Byzantium and of much of Russian history, it might be theorized that the present, reluctant nature of the Russians to truly work with the West might have something to do with an assumption that Byzantium--the main ancestors, culturally, politically, and spiritually, of modern Russia--had sold their souls out for help which never really came. But, ultimately, since Russia and the USA are founded largely by Roman ideals, one wonders who will fall first of the same basic, terrible things. Population rates for both nations are slowing. Really good documentary, thanks for posting!
As an American whose grandparents came from Galicia and were Ukrainians, I must remind people that the influence of Byzantium extends through Kiev on the way to Moscow. You might say Ukrainians gave civilization to Russia!
It mentions that as it described the Slavs as being the same as the other barbarians. It says that the Slavs discovered Byzantiums most valuable treasure, God.
Also, the way this documentary obsessively looks West for the source of Byzantium's troubles is a dead give-away that this is Russian propaganda. They did have issues to their West but it was from Mother Russia's fellow Slavs, not Western Europeans. The Slavs were to Byzantium what the Germans were to Rome. But the *vast majority of their issues came from the Islamic people to their east, who actually ended up conquering them. Not that I would expect an accurate historical documentary from Eastern Europe, let alone Russia. But still. They don't even try to be subtle here.
Kilpatrick Kirksimmons I definately do agree that this particular document is quite anti-west, but it is unfortunately true that the 4. Crusade was so catastrophic for Byzantium, that it never really recovered fully. Thanks to the crusaders Ottomans could conquer Constantinople far more easily and make Anatolia in the end muslim.
if you google the profeit Mohanmand in tbe Quran you find that invading and conquering Constantinople and Byzantium. you.ll understand how it was in the Muslium blood to do what it did
I'm still part way through. I have read JJ Norwich's excellent and sympathetic trilogy on Byzantium. I grieve for this great city and civilisation, and am appalled at thè role played by the Catholic West in its demise. I am especially angry at Venice, and to a lesser degree, Genoa, but frankly the Vatican bears great responsibility. A few points, though: Constantine had had a gutful of the corrupt govt in Rome and, as sole emperor of the whole empire, simply moved the centre of govt to his new city, Constantinople (built on the site of Byzantium, and founded on 11.5.330). While there is a practice of confining the term 'Roman empire' to the western empire, and naming the eastern section the 'Byzantine empire', in actual fact the whole continued as the Roman empire. From this perspective, the Roman empire endured until 1453. However, the empire started in 27BC, with Augustine. That gives the Roman empire a duration of 1480 years - but the western empire only 422 years (depending on whether you choose the fall of Rome in 395, or the death of the last western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, 476
Oops, cut off. You can add in the republican era, starting 509BC, which gives the western empire 1148 years' duration, but that's not empire. Course, that gives the whole empire a life of 1962 years. Can't see the argument for backdating the empire to 753BC, though - the founding of the Roman city-State. That's pretty artificial. Back to the doco...
Finished. Tragic. The malaise that befell Constantinople toward the end, the loss of will to live and embracing a culture of death, is very much abroad in the West today. Europe's gone. UK's heading the same way. US is being dragged in that direction but there is still valiant resistance. There are many scores to settle.
The irony is that the byzantines hated their western neighboring kingdoms. They saw them and considered them as savages in the middle ages, and used them sometimes to attack their enemies.
Byzantine Empire was inherently a ROMAN EMPIRE. It changed its essence only when in Europe was established the Holy Roman Empire by Charlemagne. In that moment the Church gave the duty of defending Italy and the Roman Church to the Franks and no more to the byzantine. So the roads of the two sides of the ex-Roman empire went apart.
It was called ROMAN empire back then, the term "byzantine" was invented around the 16th century from some German scholars. The west and the east always fought about who is the legal roman empire, that usually between the German Holy Roman Empire and Greek Eastern Roman Empire.
Appreciate the work and useful! Touched by the history and we people of the so called modern age yet not modern at all are actually living the age of destruction because we have abandoned the true values of life ...faith. The story is a great lesson yet they still argue.... and argue till the total destruction from God arrives.
I know my byzantine history, and this is absurd. It is distorted throughout, and in many places just wrong. The byzantine empire only held onto Italy for a few years and trashed it so much the Italians were glad when the barbarians came back. It held onto north Africa for about a hundred years before the Arabs took it. Anyhow there is no break between Rome and the eastern empire. They were both roman. They were both the same thing. If this is the kind of thing they show on russian TV I am truly sad. First elementary and secondary schools in the world? I call bullshit.
Iam not an European or a Christian, but I have always admired the city of two continents, the problems Byz faced like nationality, economic or religious excommunication were faced later by the Russian Empire or the US in later years. So though the problems were new they were solvable. Its just that everything has an expiry date and the Byz was dated at 29/5/1453.
Half way through I began to wonder if I was watching a documentary on Medieval Rome (Byzantium) or some Russian attempt of laying claim to being the successors of that system and placing distinctly contemporary biases from the Russian perspective on the people and events of the past. The longer the documentary goes the more it deviates from simple academic historical documentation and more into contemporary correlations, I still consider it an interesting case study into how Russians view the world and themselves though.
It's so depressing to consider how much has been wiped out by European leaders and armies over the centuries. The guilty are dead and every generation until eternity are the victims.
Matt Foley Why would they? They wanted to see Byzantium falling in pieces. They had secret treaties with the sultan not to help Byzantium and stay neutral. These treaties are well hidden in Vatican archives.
+Matt Foley I wish. The west decided to stick to the deal with Byzantium that if the Orthodox decided to be guided by Rome in matters of the Faith the West would provide all the necessary help but if the Orthodox decided against it the West would leave them to themselves (an awful thing to do in any case) There were still some Westerners mercenaries but when they saw that the Emperor himself open a part of the defensive wall to shoot with a canon at the muslims the enemy flooded the wall and it became impossible to win the war that lasted about a 1000 years. The the last westerners gave up and left on their ships waiting while the Emperor and his few troops stood their ground till dead The lesson for the West here is that it should have always helped Byzantium for when it was left the musulmas continued to spread their horror till Vienna We would also have today a strong and rich cultural heritage alive and well but as it is now the turks have destroyed even the identity of the land, acting much like the case of the "body snatchers" or the "coo coo bird"
+Matt Foley The west did send troops. Most of the defenders were made up of Venetian, Papal, and Genoese, and the commander on the walls was a Genoese soldier named Giovanni Giustiniani. And it doesn't make sense that the Italians wanted to see the city fall, as both republics had huge economic and trade interests in the city, and they didn't want to risk losing that to the Turks.
+TheusZeusDeus No No buddy you have been fed some rather biased "ill formed opinions" by the way, forget the Turks for the Seljuks had always coveted Constantinople and always had wanted to be it and the only way they could achieve that was by becoming muslim and conquer it, which they did, those body snatcher succeeded The Byzantine empire did not end at the crusader take over for the crusaders respected i and continued under Latin European rule, Not so with the Turks, Culture, identity, language, religion was destroyed with them and it previous history shoved and under the turkish carpets In fact the crusaders never intended to take over Constantinople but rather were invited by a legitimate Byzantine prince heir to the throne of Constantinople whose father was deposed and murdered by a Byzantine coup. This prince had promised the crusaders soldiers and supplies. The crusaders succeeded in restoring him to the throne but he was murdered by byzantines who hated his family and now also hated the crusaders. It was only then that the crusaders needed to avenge the prince and receive the payment promised but now denied You see, it was the play of Byzantine dirty politics that destroyed them, however, the crusaders respected the empire and continued under Latin rule. They where all originally under Latin rule anyway The empire did finally end at the Turkic arrival but it was the Byzantine dirty politics that made it possible
From Wikipedia: The First Crusade (1095-1099) was the first of a number of crusades that attempted to recapture the Holy Land, called for by Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in 1095. Urban called for a military expedition to aid the Byzantine Empire, which had recently lost most of Anatolia to the Seljuq Turks. Result: Crusader victory Location: Mostly Levant and Anatolia Date: 1096-1099
@@MrISkater xtianity civilised brought sanity to europe but problem is when people lose faiths motivation but this have not happened with other age old religions
@@MrISkater dont think so early church were not for educational purposes but rather for society building up its got social bringing but glad now to see many convents imparting good education
Does anyone have a link to the 29:52 agni parthene version clear, without the voiceover? It is one of the most beautiful versions I've ever heard, but unfortunately I can't find it anywhere.
Russia “meddles” in Ukraine far more than any other country. When was the last time the West invaded and annexed a chunk of Ukraine and supported a separatist rebellion at the same time? 🤔
If you are interested in this period of rapid Byzantine decline which lead to the destruction of Constantinople by the West in 1204. Suggest you read Against the Fall of Night by Michael Arnold. His novel is based on through research chronicling the life of the last great Byzantine Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos . A brilliantly written novel about a little known fascinating historical figure who risked everything to save his empire. Highly recommended.
Wrong. Following the assassination of Andonikas I the last Komenian emperor. The successor Angeloi emperors incompetence left the Empire bankrupt and militarily defenseless, the navy was disbanded leaving Constantinople at the mercy of the 4th Crusade. The Angelio emperors Issac and Alexios were a disaster for Byzantium.The rapid military,economic and political decline in the 20 years prior to the sack of 1204 shows how quickly a civilization can fall apart due to incompetent leadership.
Caroline - 452 Assyrians are a great civilisation but were destroyed several times and then recovered Henderson : the old Assyrian empire, the middle Assyrian empire, the New Assyrians empire which are different .
If you win the war, you write the history. The west won, that's the history. The truth... now, there's the mystery. The info in this documentary all sounds like a reinterpretation worthy of thought. A VERY interesting take: thanks for sharing.
"The apex and height of human achievement?".....I think not: your statement completely ignored the accomplishments (previous and future) of the Chinese, the peoples of the Indian subcontinent, the Inca, or even the Ottomans or Arabs. Byzantium was a part of a broader, longer human process of cultural creation, expansion, and change......I agree with Zokll Ehbfd entirely that this video is a sad, tragic mix of historical propaganda, although not that of communism mixed with a highly Russo-centric favoring viewpoint but rather that of adherence to religious orthodoxy that happens to serve nationalistic tones. This video is too subjective, too self-serving, and too 'feel good' for those who happen to come from cultures that can trace back to Byzantium. Real history would point out external as well as INTERNAL factors for decline (the Soviet Union crumbled more from within than from pressure from the out-- I see a similar trend arising yet again in today's Russia ***** as the Russian economy is too terribly susceptible to external pressure because of lack of proper fiscal diversification, increased bureaucratic efficiency, and not throwing money into parades, larger tanks and missiles, or fleeting pomp and ceremony to try to make the rest of the world believe that they are more powerful and deserving of respect (hmm, this seems a bit....byzantine, don't you think?)
Interesting. So, to summarize, if Byzantine had stopped infighting and overthrowing each other, they had the wealth and potential to stick around a lot longer. Selfishness kills a nation.
This is a blatant hagiography. Byzantium was great, and certainly greater than the Dark Age Europe to its west. But it was hardly the fount of all civilization that this vid makes it out to be, especially after the Islamic Conquests. The tale of Byzantium is basically 1,000 years of shrinking territory, religious squabbles, and barbarian invasions and sieges, with brief spurts of resurgence. It doesn't compare with the united Roman Empire that came before it, or the Exploration/Imperial Age that came after it.
***** Serbs were Slav invaders who later wanted to expand against the Empire. They do not deserve to be called "Romans", even if they are Orthodox. P.S No offense was meant. P.S.S We still like you.
***** Serbs never had a kingdom in the empire (at least as far as I know). They were intruders, like any other Slav population, who threatened to "steal" the Empire's identity. If you were part of the empire, where were you when we tried to resurrect it? Hm?
***** 1. Wow you really talk a lot and only half of it is/might be true. 2. The "Romei" were exclusively Greeks who called themselves "Romans" (Ρωμαίοι) because they were an accepted culture since the conquest of the Greek city-states by Rome. Serbs were not Romans, they were Slavs with different traditions, origins and culture. 3. Greeks were the majority of the empire until the Slavs came downwards. Otherwise the official language would have been Slavic. 4. No we don't compare you to Bulgars. In fact we like you (Serbia and Russia mostly) due to religion. We (or at least I) know exactly what Bulgars have done, where they're from and what was their culture. 5. Byzantium couldn't have ended because of 10 million CITIZEN and unorganised Slavs. It took 1000 years for Constantinople to be taken permanently and it was only taken because the walls were in a seriously bad state and the Empire was economically and militarily weak, thanks to our western "friends". 6. The eagles on your flags only tell me that you're nothing but wanna-bes, like the former Holy Roman Empire. Should I accept the Germans as Romans because they had an eagle in their flag? No fucking way! 7. There is no theory. Only truth with some... non-truth theor-ish facts. Still, it's pretty accurate. 8. "So please quit that tone because All their hisotry Serbs married Byzantine princeses and vice versa." And? Roman (or "Byzantine") princes and princesses married Germans and Franks too, does that mean I should accept them as Romans? I don't think so. Marriages were only means of a temporary alliance. 9. Get your facts straight. The only accepted cultures in the empire were Greeks (Romans basically) and maybe Armenians. *No one else!* 10. "Look up the Holy monastery Hilandar on HOLY GREEK mount ATHOS in today's Greece and many others.. How were they built? Hilandar WAS BUILT BY STEFAN NEMANJA. and St Sava IN 11TH CENTURY." Sounds like another lame excuse... 11. The "Μεγάλη Ιδέα" was an Idea of a bigger and stronger "Greece" who would retake our lost lands. Not just islands... 12. You didn't protect shit. You didn't even help us when we needed you in 1204 and later in 1453. Hell, you couldn't even protect your much-stronger selves against the Turks.
The Western Europeans were not barbarians when they raided Constantinople. They had great kingdoms and their own empires(the union of Norway with Denmark, HRE, etc.). Im supposed to believe that only loot from a sacked city spurred the growth of an entire continent for centuries to come? The sacking of cities has occurred before without these effects. This all sounds like Russian propaganda, saying that the west only became good because it stole the wealth of Constantinople through raids, and saying that the business dealings of the west are meant to be mistrusted.
***** I meant when did Russia help Byzantium and then Greece. And about the nazis, if it wasn't for Italy and Normandy, we can never be sure of the outcome on the eastern front.
When the greek war of independence started in 1820 in Transylvania, Russia had promised to help, as an orthodox patron and enemy of the Ottomans. On the contrary, they provided no help at all and they even allowed the Sultan's army to enter the Danubian Principalities to terminate the revolt. The tsar aligned with the "Holy Alliance" of Europe and he fired his minister of Foreign Affairs, Ioannis Capodistrias, and ethnic Greek from the island of Corfu. Russia did finally defeat the turkish-egyptian fleet in Navarino, but they did so on agreement with the English and the French. In the 1st Balkan War Russia helped Serbia and Bulgaria because they were slavic nations. Greece is not. Its only connection with Russia was the religious one. In the 2nd Balkan war Russia wanted Bulgaria to expand so that it would have a vassal country with a mediterranean coastline. They supported these claims in Berlin but Greece was used as a counter-balance to that by the western allies. Greek victories helped establish dominance over Macedonia and Thrace. Russia did not like that. Also, the USSR helped the turkish army of Kemal Ataturk recover after WW I and win the war in Anatolia effectively wiping out the greek-speaking population of the area. Lenin funded them and equipped them. Finally, Russia tried to establish a communist state in Greece by helping the local communist front, guiding the country into a bitter civil war that devastated it completely (1945-1949). Not wanting to face the official State of Greece in open war nor the western allies supporting the country, they limited their support to vague promises, leaflets and propaganda coming from their vassal state of Yugoslavia. This kept the greek communists fighting in hope of soviet support which never came and of course let to their utter destruction. This war still polarises and creates tension to people in Greece. After these events, Greece became a member of NATO and later on the EU, effectively choosing the opposite side in the Cold War. Russia went on to support Tito on his alleged claims of a "macedonian republic" which is the main reason for today's naming dispute with FYROM. Of course, Russia recognises the country by the name "Macedonia" when the western european countries like France, Germany or Spain do not. In conlusion, Russia doesn't give two shits about Greece. They still want to sell weapons to Greece like the US and Germany, maintaining the tensions with Turkey and ensuring a great income from the situation. Russians are also coming to Greece as tourists, more and more with each year, leaving enough money to keep Greeks happy. But that's as far this relationship goes. Hope you enjoyed the history lesson, sorry for the long text. Here is a *potato*
John Saf Προσπαθούμε φίλε! Και ειδικά όταν ακούω συνέχεια για τους Ρώσους που είναι αδέρφια μας και πάντα μας στήριζαν κλπ. κλπ. στην Ελλάδα δεν μπορώ να μην τα πω..
civilization in western europe was not completely absent but was steadily growing, particularly in southern Europe at that time. Probably what got the Byzantine decline was their mayor corruption something lacking in western Europe
+2coryman look, Russians are better united with the West than being trouble makers. Looking in perspective to the future, your anti Western attitude will never benefit anyone and you become the greatest sore looser
i do not understand why Russians are so obsessed trying to show themselves as the continuity of Byzantine Empire. They are not. Just because they have some cultural heirs, it does not mean they are equals. Moscow can not be compare with Rome or Constantinople neither with the civilizations they were. Russian are a copy of many cultures and after Constantinople nobody did not know where Moscow was at that time till Pedro the great. if it is in that way, where are the roads to get Moscow after Constantinople.
This is ridiculous simply because the presenter is an Orthodox priest, and not a historian. Everything has an obvious propaganda spin to it. However, the fact is still that at the time, the Byzantine world and the east in general was much more civilized, cultured, literate and rich than the west. This shouldn't be a problem to accept, even if you're proud of the west.
The fall of Byzantium sounds disturbingly similar to what's happening in modern Europe (and to a lesser extent the US): declining birthrates, demographic replacement by an incompatible culture, loss of faith in the native culture, declining economy, and so forth. This time, unfortunately, there's no new Western Europe or undiscovered Americas to escape to. Unless someone figures out a practical way to colonize Mars...
Interting: about other plants this is what the politicians had to care and putting on the table, although (for the moment) that is kind of Science Fiction. Infact, the main and basic problem nobody admit is that we humans are too much numerous on the earth.
In the USA, we also have our own "barbarians" to contend with : native-born Blacks. They have ruined a nation that lead the world in the 1950's, all in the name of "equality". Reminds me of old saying: "Cut off the legs of the giants, so the midgets feel good about themselves." USA education system, once the best in the world, is now producing "functional illiterates", thanks to the integration movement and mixture with Blacks.
I'm sorry, but this documentary is a mess. At times it sounds like an old Soviet propaganda piece. Trying to blame the West for the problems of Byzantium is bizarre, to say the least. There didn't seem to be any chronological consistency at all. Other than a couple of mentions of the names of emperors, we had no idea when anything occurred. The primary problem of Byzantium, the lack of clear lines of succession, is at best glossed over.
+Christian Libertarian always the catholic church wanted to destroy the orthodox .The crusaders destroyed byzantium .If they didn't conquer constantinople and stole the treasures of constantinople which even now they are in many cities of italy and western europe , byzantium would have hold for many centuries .After 1204 byzantium never regained his power.When the ottomans sieged constantinople , the byzantine people didn't want to unite with the catholic church .They were saying this ''καλύτερα το τουρκικό φακιόλι παρά η παπική τιάρα'' which means ''we prefer the ottomans and not the pope's diadem/tiara''. This is the truth
+VAGGELIS NATSIDIS ughhh, That was what the Byzantine wished, but ONLY until the turkic people were really present inside the walls of Constantinople and they became like the "bodysnatchers and coo coo birds" bent on erasing the greek and roman identity, including erasing the FAITH of the population which continues to this day By contrast, when the germanics took over the West, after some time they tried to restore Rome as it was. But of course we know that they had destroyed the system and knowhow SEE THE DIFFERENCE? In retrospect we can CLEARLY SEE what would have been the wise course of action, To get along with your blood brothers and at least be united in the big picture, Constantinople would be proudly standing today and if Rome had behaved preserving its 'original' virtues adding to it Christianity and not abusing its slaves , there wouldn't be a broken line in Roman government to this day and our world would be much much more advance indeed
This is a very well made video documentary about Byzantium. I found most of the facts as true. He is explaining that the judicial system does come from the Romans and concentrates to what caused the fall of the byzantine empire. Of course no historical narrative is perfect so if people are struggling to find flaws , they will surely find some ..because there are some points that should be mentioned more clearly. The ancestors of the Russians that found the glorious orthodox religion so appealing were also Barbarians the Swedish Varangian Rus..
I love how the narrator walks around in constantinople dressed fully in russian orthodox robes and talks to himself with all the people around him turning their heads and staring at him.
First historic russian documentary I've seen, and I must say it's very well done. On par with BBC.
+1
its hilarius!
The robes are actually too of Byzantine origin. A very bold move in the current state of the city.
Based
It is an act of courage to go about dressed as Christian clergy in Muslim Istanbul, that's why people are staring. From my understanding, most priests walk in civilian clothing there, out of caution and to avoid possible retaliation from the local population.
excellent documentary. amazing how it seems that the world has forgotten all about this once glorious empire and how precisely history repeats itself. kudos to the film makers!
For those who have limited knowledge of history: the ancient Russian State originated in the 9th century. It was the ancient Pagan traditions, but the State was precisely modeled on the Byzantine Empire, which was the main trading partner of ancient Russia. In the 13 century Rus survived the invasion of the Tatars and vassal of their State, but the Russians have preserved their religion and culture and never interrupted trade and cultural relations with Byzantium. During this time, the Rus Princes dynasty unified rules coming from Rurik. In the 15th century the Grand Duke Ivan 3 announcing Russia as an independent State, married the Byzantine Princess - the last heiress the сrown of the Byzantine Empire and made the symbol of Russian State emblem of the Byzantine Empire. Then Russia was announced as the third Rome-the last independent bastion and keeper of Eastern Christianity. Pope in orthodoxy - heretic and usurper.
In 19 century Russia almost recaptured Constantinople from the Turks. She wanted to revive the Byzantine Empire,
but the States of West and Central Europe for fear of power of Russia under the
threat of war forced her to abandon those intentions.
No one cares about Russian history except for Russians.
@@yusufpolatkesen8468 Not true
>ancient
>9th century
pick one
Hedeby Trading post was the most trade with Rus. Byzantine trade not until 11th c. True about Russia could have won back Constantinople but could they keep it is question.
In my country there are several runestones of men who lived and died in "Greece". The Varangian guard, loyal to death. I am proud of this historical link between Sweden and Greece as I cannot stop to read about and being drawn to the history of Byzantium. αθάνατοι!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard
No wonder why many viewers are shocked by this. Although this is true that this were used for bias, there are many facts that most of us Westerners completely lack of information since we are so into our own Roman self magnification. It is true that the first nominally university is Pandidakterion of Constantinopolis which many of its students taught Western monks and intellectuals in Carolingian Empire (8th cents), igniting the so called Carolingian Renaissance. Though its management are differ with our university (which was influenced by Church management and scholasticism movement in 12th cents), it was the first state sponsored educational and well managed institution which in turn were absence in the ancient academies (ancient academies lack of concrete management system and funds were collected from endowment by the rich or benevolence of the ruler). Other contribution is the codification of Corpus Iuris Civilis, the foundation of the current civil laws which countries like Germany, France, and Russia adopted (Romans didnt codify its laws surprisingly). Also, preservation and innovation of art, architecture, literature, theatrical performance, library, science, technologies, musics, and also medical managements were done by ERE. The medieval rulers were adamant of ERE cultures and powers hence they always styled themselves as ERE emperors. Even solidus/nomismata were the dollar of the Middle Age.
The 4th Crusade was conducted by Venezia and Genoa in 1204 on the basis of the onslaught of its citizens inside Constantinople by the weak Andronikos I Komnenos. The Pope wanted the 4th crusaders to go to Middle East but Doge Enrico Dandolo encouraged the contingent instead to Constantinople to avenge Latin's massacre in 1182. This is the sad part committed by crusaders but also the result of weakness of Andronikos. I say if we want to understand our modern development, us Westerners, have to learn more about ERE rather than focusing much in our own Western historical development. Many could be learned from ERE/Byzantine Empire.
+Aotearoa Seniores ...Westerns no invented nothing they discovered greeks tour de force,when greeks been in 400BC they been in 1400BC.I tell in simple way, since the day of Aristotele's how many steps go ahead the Philosophy??--who understand,..understood--something for byzantines ,.when Istanbul(don't worry is greek word) fallen in turks, starting -out the Renaissance..i believe in some years the westerns wiil be learning that all starts from superstar civilisation of germans even Nietzsche-Holderlin-Heidegger-Goethe- shout for truth
The Greeks and Romans had the equivalent of universities centuries before Byzantium. They were simply continuing a tradition of higher education.
Edwin Pace Academia didnt have the same organizations, it was more like loosely managed individual academics. Yes they are continuing the tradition, but pandidakterion somehow was more influential on the development of later scholasticism and learning institutions throughout medieval to modern day.
very wise
"The 4th Crusade was conducted by Venezia and Genoa in 1204 on the basis of the onslaught of its citizens inside Constantinople by the weak Andronikos I Komnenos."
What have the citizens of Zara do to the Venetians to deserve the sack of Zara before the Venetians even came to Consantinople?
Dont try to justify Venetian actions and attocities as a retribution when in fact those slaughtered Latins deserve that slaughter because they have been stealing from the Byzantine people right before their own eyes for years.
Andronikos did the right thing. He expelled the Latins who were stealing from the Greeks and those who were caught were slaughtered.
Every Crusader even before the 4th Crusade who passed through the Eastern Roman Empire was stealing and pillaging. Even Peter the Hermit pillaged until The Emperor shipped them to Asia Minor.
Those Latins were opportunists trying to exploit and steal from the Greek people thanks to Manuel's Western wife's initiative to sign the Golden Bull That gave Latin's "legal" rights to take over Greek property.
So the people themselves slaughtered those Venetian merchants it wasnt a command given by Andronikos.
Dandolo just used that as an excuse.
First and foremost the Latins had no business exploiting the Empire so they deserved their deaths. What Dandolo did later was unspeakable and he did it to others without even an excuse. Ask the people of today's Zadar.
I can't think of a better person to present a show about Byzantium than Bishop Tikhon. Orthodox clergy have a unique way of explaining things that suits this documentary very well. (He must be speaking very quickly because the English translator is stumbling over his words just to keep up!) I love to listen to our local priest (Gr.Odox) talk about history; such a unique perspective in today's USA.
Thanks for the great film! 👍👍
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_(Orthodox_Church)
A first class documentary I never before knew so much about Byzantium. Thank you.
They're not blaming the West for everything. Quote from the film: "Of course, it's senseless to say that the West was to blame for Byzantium's misfortunes and fall... Byzantium's historical blows occurred when the Byzantines themselves betrayed their own principles upon which their Empire was established..."
This video offers the best analysis I've ever had the chance to follow on the raise and fall of the Byzantine Empire, its relation to the Western European medieval powers, Islam and the translation of its Orthodox Christian values to the "Third Rome" Russia. Indeed Russia inherented the Byzantine Legacy and nowdays the Russian people returned to these immortal God given values of Christianism after 70 years of communist spiritual oblivion. Without Byzantium and its over a millenium defence of the Greco-Christian Civilization (Humanism and Faith in Christ), we don't know if Europe or the West would have survived as evoluted and refined civilizations. The video isn't bias, as somebody has claimed here, but it would have been bias if it wasn't as presented.
As a humble admirer of Roman history and culture, I can't help but to cry the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire. This documentary helped me to understand better the all the real motives of this historical event: not only the greed and envy of the Western powers and the encroachment of the Ottoman Turks but the fateful fracture of the so called Byzantine society itself determined the inevitable fall of the Empire. As a Roman Catholic, I deplore and condemn the treacherous attack of the 4th "crusade" upon the sacred city of Constantinople...
Fascinating to hear the Russian perspective on the fall of Byzantium. Most Western historians wouldn't place much emphasis on religion, capitalism, or the state becoming less centralized and authoritarian as the reasons for Byzantium's downfall. Nor on banking, as Constantinople becoming one of the first victims of predatory banking didn't really begin until long after 1204, well into the empire's terminal decline. I think Western historians have a more unbiased perspective (at least modern historians do... the age of Edward Gibbon's description of Byzantium as a long, continuous tale of pathetic decline having fallen out of favor over the past century). However, we don't focus enough on the role of selfish elites in bringing about an empire's downfall, and this documentary does well to point out how the selfish elites brought on the ruin of their own homeland by constant civil wars, employing foreign troops to fight their wars, dodging taxes, ignoring the demographic health of the empire, resorting to short-term solutions, etc. etc.
Actually Western hisotrians have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to Eastern Roman Empire. All Western contemporary chronicles are based on the Vatican's view of the Eastern Roman Empire and their view is filled with hate that last to this very day.
The West is negatively predisposed towards anything Orthodox to this very day. Take Russia, Serbia, Greece, Armenia. All these spiritual successors of Byzantium are seen through negative western lenses.
It is generally agreed by every historian western or eastern that the fall was direct result of the 4th Crusade's plundering since it has been a historical fact that after that event the Empire never even made an effort to restore itself.
The same plunder this man explains happens as we speak rn with Eastern European countries being under the control of the EU. Wealth and natural resources have been extracted from Eastern Europe and the population of every country has nothing to show for. they are all plunged in debts and not a single monumental construction project in any Eastern European country has been conducted since the fall of the USSR.
Every single of these countries is in major debts and financial turmoil, ruled by oligarchs while Western companies maintain monopoly over every resource of a given country. Every single major company and factory that is worth anything in eastern Europe has been bought by Western European companies. The Germans rule the telecommunications networks of every single of these countries and these countries cant even maintain the infrastructure built during communist times yet alone undertake some big building project.
how pathetic is that that they cant even maintain what the commies built. 30 years have passed since capitalism came in Eastern Europe and not a single of these countries has anything to show for. They all have tremendous debt/Gdp ratios and falling birth rates. Some even negative ones like Bulgaria while Germany is getting richer and richer by the day. They export food with lower quality to Eastern European markets. There is a reason why greece went bankrupt.
The same reason this guy explains. Foreing interference in domestic economies never brings anything positive.
Yes, well except some of it simply isn't true, the part about capitalism and banking for example is simply incorrect. The explanation for the decline of the empire is also unconvincing. The Western perspective of Byzantium has long been problematic but this "documentary" is propaganda for the current Russian regime. They are trying to draw rather crude parallels with modern Russia, as well as claim the Byzantine heritage versus the West. It's not history, it's remaking the past to fit the present.
There's no reason to be reading Gibbon, there's far better books on both Rome and Byzantium these days.
Great upload. Thank you from Greece.
Germans named the Eastern Roman Empire as "Byzantine Empire". Why is that? Because they wanted the title "Roman Empire" for themselves, the "Holy Roman Empire" born in 962.
They had a conflict with the Eastern Emperor in Constantinople, especially after Otto's son Otto II (r. 967-983) adopted the designation "imperator Romanorum". Still, Otto formed marital ties with the east when he married the Byzantine princess Theophanu.
True words brother.
Byzantine Empire never existed. The term Byzantine its a trick invented from the Western Europeans to steal the romam heritage from the Greeks. There were never such a think as Byzantines, just Greeks who became Romans and ruled the leftover Romam empire for almost 1000 years.
There were always only one Kaiser of Rome and hes Throne were in Konstantinopel.
Ζήτω ή Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων
@@ΛεωνάνδροςΠεργαμενός Επιτέλους, ένας μορφωμένος Έλληνας που γνωρίζει την αλήθεια και χαίρομαι πολύ.
@@ΛεωνάνδροςΠεργαμενός Byzantium was not just Greeks. Stop nationalizing The Roman Empire. There were Slavs living it in too and Latins. Greeks werent even the majority
Hopefully the Third Rome, i.e. Moscow, will learn from the errors of Byzantium and continue to curtail and punish the Oligarchs and strengthen the central state for the protection and benefit of the people.
+davisoneill Russia has nothing to do with Rome...
+Lord HiggleBottum the only ties the Russians can claim the Turks can also claim is blood ties. The Turk that conquered Constantinople was a Grandson of a previous Emperor I believe
+Nathan Palmer what race were the byzantiums? what race are the turks? - essentially the same, just converted to islam?
Charles N No mate the Turks came from Central Asia, but the Romans didn't really have a race they had a culture and Idea which was the beauty of Rome. The "Byzantines" or later Romans were Greeks which is why there was instability when a non-Greek rose to the Imperial throne.
That is like saying the North Africans weren't a race they just converted to Islam, which isn't true they came, conquered and brought peoples to move in to recently conquered territory
+Nathan Palmer I in fact was genuinely interested asking these questions and wanting to engage. this must be an absolute rarity now on youtube.
here we go have a blast: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people
Byzantine Empire=Eastern Roman Empire.
Cian Cooney You mean Greak Empire
Alexandros Augo you mean Romano-Greek Empire
they spoke greek but called themselves romans.
only because it was for forbidden from the Christian Regime.
Hadn't be for that "Christian Regime" there wouldn't have be any empire at all.
Even the use of the greek language was because of tradition, since it had always dominated the region since Alexander the Great's Empire days.
Alexandros Augo No I don't. They didn't view themselves as Greeks, rather Romans (Romaioi) and were politically a continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire.
True, Byzantium as an earthly empire did end, but its spiritual ideals (so often contradicted by the Byzantine emperors and priests themselves) live on in the Eastern Orthodox churches. All across the world, thousands of ordinary people continue to follow the ancient spiritual way of the Byzantines, which is now finding new life in Russia - which from the beginning took Byzantine Christianity to its heart - in across the world. What really fell in Constantinople was an empire, the earthly aspect of Byzantium, which, despite all its religious rites, images and great churches, was like all empires innately corruptible and doomed to fall (as are the powerful corrupt, self-serving governments of this world today). But the beauty, the richness and intense devoutness of the spiritual life in its pure form remains alive and with us still.
Europe must learn from this lesson. Immigrants should try to adapt their new homeland culture. Look what happen now in England and Germany.
After WW1 when France and Britain tore apart the Ottoman Empire and redrew all its borders ,that was a form of payback.
I, for one, think this is a very interesting documentary. I like hearing different perspectives on the same subjects. I have watched documentaries on the fall of Byzantium made by the BBC, the History channel, by Turkish television, by Greek television and now this one, from a clearly Russian perspective.
There are many interesting concepts vented here. Many of them new to me, as any new perspective is bound to be.
One thing is clear. We should all try to understand reality as seen by the perspective of others, even if we disagree with it. The failure of people to get along with people that see reality in a different perspective is a personal failure. When transported to governments, it's cause for wars and strife and is at the root of most conflicts.
I am not a religious individual and am always amazed by the destruction (and construction) produced by religion and a faith. Especially because it comes between people working out their differences in a rational manner. The need to impose a belief system upon others is amazing to me. And the poorer and more uneducated a society is, the greater this need.
Couldn't agree more. In my twenties I remember thinking it'd be cool to speak another language but it would have very little utility or practicality. And now 10 to 15 years later I think of how ignorant that statement was and this is one of the many reasons it's hard to find documentaries from diverse perspectives on historical events with out speaking two plus languages
I am a descandant of this great empire -- Byzantium. It is a wonderful documentary!! Thanks to the Russian people.
Kael7777 it was infliritrated by the envious ones & killed it from inside .....by the parasitiscums
Very colored and misleading
OK. Well if you are truly a descendant thereof, then stop calling it Byzantium. It was the Roman Empire.
May the light of Byzantium live on forevermore in story and song...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantium_(disambiguation)
I am an enthusiast on greco-roman culture and I love documentaries about the byzantine empire. I do respect both the presenter and the script writer, but I did found some incoherences in the documentary (1) the Byzantine empire under the rule of Justinian I reached its maximum extension in the sixth century; (2) Successive wars with the Sassanids (Persians) and the Arabs, along with plague and climate changes greatly reduced the population in the empire, making it hard to rule from Constantinople ; (3) Interistingly the empire reached its economic peak under Basil II (macedonian dinasty) in the elenth century, when the empire shrinked to just Greece, The Balkans and Anatolia; (4) Venice always considered itself a vassal of the Byzantine empire, and the control of Byzantine's commerce was a reward for their military help (naval) against the Normans, and a treaty was signed; (5) The byzantine state lost a lot of money with this agreement, so it decided to unilaterally break the contract and keep Venetian merchants as hostage; (6) The 4th crusade was intended to free Alexandria from the Arabs, but the forces were deviated to Constantinople by the pretender prince Alexios Angelos, who promissed food and money for the crusaders and due payments/hostage release to the Venetians; (7) Because prince Alexios Angelos coukdn't keep his promise, latin knights took over and sacked Constantinople and splitted the country into numerous smaller states; (8) At this point the Byzantine empire had already lost most of Anatolia in the Byzantine-Seljuq wars (before the 4th crusade, see Battle of Manzikert), where much of its manpower and food production was; (9) At this point, trade from Asia had been deviated to Alexandria, and Constantinople lost most of its revenues; (10) The recovery of the Byzantine empire after these blows would still had been possible if the turks weren't allowed to conquer Gallipoli and Thrace, due to deficient bizantine defenses; (11) At the time Constantinople was besieged by Sultan Mehmet II there were more soldiers defending it than actual citizens, and the wealthiest of them were Venitian and Genoese merchants; (12) Sultan Mehmet II just wanted to conquer the city and even proposed to Emperor Constantine XI to surrender the city in exchange for his life and a ruling position in Mitra, south Greece; (13) After the walls of Constantinople were breached, eyewitnesses recount that Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos actually led a suicidal charge to the turks with the surviving soldiers, ending up dying in the process (legends say he was saved by and angel and transformed into a marble statue, that watched over Constantinople); (14) Renaissance and the Humanitarian movement in Western Europe were motivated by Byzantine scholars long before Constantinople had fallen; (15) The Byzantine empire preserved and developed greco-roman culture, innovations and technology that was later used both by Western Europe and the turks to become the superpowers they ended up becoming.
1. First and Foremost it was under Justinian I not II that the Empire reached its biggest extent and it was the 6th century.
3. Basil the Second ruled in the 11th century.
You have literally no idea what you are taling about.
@@robotube7361 I might had the dates wrong and the number (yeah, I not II).
Apart from that, I respect your opinion. From your lack of counter-arguments, I believe you have nothing more of value to add. Am I wrong?
Finally, I have corrected the comment. Thank you for the feedback ;)
"Byzantiym" was an extention of the roman empire, they themselfs called them Romans and the roman empire. The name Byzantium was given by the catholics in the 1500 hundreds. So it was an state/kingdom/republic/empire that survived for 2206 years
I did not know that after Constantinople fell that Mehmet asked the well off residents why more resources were not given to the defenders. He did not like their answer and their heads were chopped off.
Very well filmed. But Justinian was a Roman emperor. This video is about the Roman Empire. German historians only much later, well after 1453, dubbed it "Byzantium" ... The inhabitants called themselves Roman and Constantinople was founded by Roman emperor Constantine.
Glory to thee our god glory to thee . “They couldn’t tell if they were still on earth during Divine Liturgy” . How true that statement is indeed
I think the fall is a real shame, its no surprise that byzantium is not really covered much in history books, and here in australia there is no mention of it whatsoever in the history books, its a huge embarrassment for the westerners involved in its demise.
Had they embraced their multiculturalism and not been weakened and survived the crusades attacks and not fallen to the turks, constantinople could of become like a new atlantis.
Here in the United States of America (spoiler: our public education is not the greatest) it's usually just tagged onto the end of a sentence. Like "The Roman Empire fell in the mid 5th century, although it continued with the Byzantines in the East." Like, seriously, that's about it.
That was an interesting documentary. I never even begin to see the Byzantines in that sort of light. I feel like byzantine history was merely Justinian and then skip to fall of a great city. Interesting to see how other people react to the same history and what kind of conclusion they can make.
I cried while watching it.
Is it just me or did someone notice a little deja vu in the relation between the west and the Greeks, then and today. Also, the Greeks and their oligarchies.
Saying that the Byzantine empire wasn't a Greek empire is like saying that the Ottoman empire wasn't a Turkish empire..Sure both empires were multinational but The Greek element was dominant and outnumbered the rest of nationalities in the byzantine empire..Let alone the official language of the empire was the greek one. After all the city of Byzantium was found by ancient Greeks .I don't see how Greek arrogance was a factor for the empire to be destroyed...the Bulgarians and the rest of slavs betrayed and stood against the empire many times during its history..Basil the second the BULGARSLAYER slayed the Bulgarian army that was pillaging the peloponese...The bulgars were never friends of the empire...more like defeated by them and unwillingly became subjects of the byzantine emperor later on. They deserved it. This documentary is a Slavic propaganda .Apparently...
romans copycat everything from hellenes religion architecture language art fighting
Heaven CanWait I agree with you ...Russian propaganda against the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The “Byzantines” never call themselves “Byzantine”. .. they called themselves Roman and spoke Greek. The Greeks were dominant indeed. Russia is the spiritual successor of Byzantium?! That is arrogance indeed
It was Greek in the sense that it was Greek-speaking, but it was definitely Roman and to say that it was not is also a gross falsification of history. The Roman Empire after 476 AD has been subjected to a propaganda campaign which began in the 8th century AD and has not ended yet to our age.
If Russia cared so much then why did the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Empire fall? Russia is not part of anything Byzantine other than sharing an Orthodoxy religion. The Byzantine's capital was Constantinople, NOT Moscow. The so-called Byzantine Empire was a Greek-oriented remnant of the whole Roman Empire when the Latin-oriented West fell.
Russia was influenced vastly by Byzantium culture. Instead of conquering the Russians with military force the Byzantines used the glory of God and built churches in Russian lands which subdued them spiritually. The Russians use a Greek styled alphabet and a lot of Russian architecture is based off Byzantine styles. Even Moscow was called the Third Rome. The Russians see themselves as successors through that orthodoxy. I maybe wrong though.
TheInceptum
A lesson to JEWMERICA! Go back to Christ and the morality of Christendom or it will implode.
How can you ask such a question?? Russia wasn't even a country back then, they had no military power to defend a whole empire. Inform yourself before asking such questions. O.o
TheInceptum
Russia is simmilar to Tatars, because of the Tatars conquest in XIII century. As a result Russian Tsar was rather simmilar to Tatars Khan than to Bizantine emperor. Russia doesn't have a lot common features with Bizantine empire, they have a lot of simmilarities with Bizantine.
So many ignorant comments here! I wonder from what kind of sources they learn their history. I'm not Russian, but it's always been so obvious that Russia continues the Byzantine tradition - in faith, art, architecture etc. If it didn't, the whole of Christendom would have been the same nowadays instead of looking so different when comparing Orthodoxy with the Catholicism + the rest. It doesn't matter how it was back then, this is emphasizing that Russia got to save that heritage. Ignorance and hate are just lame... and never a sign of wit.
I can agree there. I have always admired the Byzantines, and by extension, Russia. Both are fascinating cultures.
Cause they don't like the TRUTH ! West world ....
fat ros Let me rephrase that: I meant Tsarist Russia. I really have nothing to say about Russia nowadays.
Alina H
I could say that Russia has much more features of Tatars masters than Bizantine. In Russia has never existed freedom. There were never had rules of the law. Whole Russia was in hand of the Tsar. And it is typical to Tatars country than Bizantine.
Typical tatar country with nuclear weapon.
A lot of great lessons for our time.
Good comparison of today's economy and that of Byzantine's economy.
If Putin wants to rebuild the Empire, I will die for him.
We Eastern Christians before to accept Islam than Catholicism, we will never forget 1204.year when the devil servants from Venice attacked and destroyed the holy empire of Rome and brutally killed the Holy Emperor Isaac II Angel !!!
We are sad today because of the fall of Constantinople !!!
1204.YEAR
what about the massacre of the Latina in 1182 60,000 people were murdered.
This program has reassured me about America and it station. I can see absolutely no paralle to the problems that lead to the decline and the issues of the US.
It feels good to be reassured by programming.
The Russians have always thought of themselves as the heirs of Byzantium. This is not a new idea, it did not start with Putin. If you want to criticize a doc. please be specific. Otherwise you are not worth reading.
"The Russians have always thought of themselves as the heirs of Byzantium. yes. Question (stupid questions) of "titles"
the video is explicit that "nationality", i.e., ethnie, was not a prevailing attitude of the day.
The only heirs of the Roman Empire of the East (Imperium Romanus, Imperium Romanorum, Romania/Rhomania) are the (Romanians(Românii), Greeks( Rhōmaîoi).
Russians lie allot, and all this crap has little truth, and has no goal to present the history of the Romans, in fact is pure propaganda for Russians to fear the world and to raise them in an death cult who would allow Putin to raise armies.
Konig Corvus I believe Russia owns the future. Whoever holds this will ☦️
I find it very difficult to follow this long documentary with all the constant loud music. I gave up at the 40 minute mark. What is it with this modern fascination of keeping the viewer constantly occupied and distracted with never ending loud music, sound effects, and video effects throughout the entire production? Do they do this in school now too? Do teachers and professors play loud music through the entire lecture to keep the students constantly distracted from the lesson?
good point
+KonaCommuter yes you find the oldest music everywhere the local CVS to Funeral Parlor. also what's most distracting is the constant chatter by the archimandrite. I end up curiously listening to the archimandrite to hear similar work from him and the commentator saying in English
mrbubetube it was infliritrated by the envious ones & killed it from inside .....by the parasitiscums
In my opinion this documentary is a perfect example of using distorted facts to suit an autocratic ideology, the likes of which Europe has only seen with military dictatorships. Scaring away people from innovation, making the people praise the past without learning from it and use it to build a better future, convincing people that the stability of a country depends on it having a permanent ruler, instill fear against foreigners, unite the people against a common enemy, ... are only a few examples I found in the documentary. To learn better about history, especially byzantine history, use multiple and impartial sources. In this case, learning more about Venice, The catholic church, Ancient middle east, Turks, the Roman empire and the Arabs will be helpful. As an enthusiast I can only ask you to keep an open mind, much like the Greeks before us and just like us here in the "barbaric" roman west.
I'm extremely impressed!! The Hypedrome it's alive !
Very amazing documentary, well covered!!!!
Wow I never knew the russia s ayed such an important role in the early dark ages and medieval times and here I always thought the eastern empire was roman I'm glad they informed me of Byzantium Russian roots and the eastern empire didn't collapse they just picked up and moved to moscow
I can't believe how ignorant most people are around here. Just to clear this debate. Yes, the Eastern Roman Empire was not called Byzantine during its time. However, that does not mean that the Eastern Roman Empire was truly Roman/Latin. The Eastern Empire was essentially Greek, not Latin. Wikipedia: "Apart from the Imperial court, administration and military, the primary language used in the eastern Roman provinces even before the decline of the Western Empire was Greek, having been spoken in the region for centuries before Latin". The word Byzantium is just an alternate word to describe the Eastern Roman Empire. This doco uses 'Byzantine', others may use 'Eastern Roman'. Whatever, the word is not important. They are both correct. There's no need to make an insane OBSESSION out of a word. It is not Russian propaganda, both words are correct. The thing to remember is, whatever it's name was, the Empire was mainly Greek. The Eastern Empire economy was under Greek families control, not Roman in the sense that it was not led by a Latin class of aristocrats. This was Greek area and the Romans respected that. To put it simple for you, the Grand Roman Empire (before the split) had never been only Roman, but a mixture of Roman and Greek cultures, overlapping and mixing in a peaceful way. In the Eastern Roman Empire, the culture was Hellenistic, and the merchant class was Greek, and it remained so even under Ottoman rule. The money were in Greek hands. The only other important ethnicity were the Jews, but they were Hellenized themselves. The Eastern emperors were all ethnic Greeks. Check out their names: Heraclius, Komnenos, Alexius, Andronikos, Paleiologos and so on. For God's sake, just read the Wikipedia in tandem with this documentary. It has a list of all Byzantine Emperors. You can read, can you? Damn teenagers. And another thing: Greek influence was not restricted to Anatolia and Greece. The area of Greek influence comprised the whole Eastern Mediterranean, including now-Arab areas, like Cyrene, Palestine, Syria and Egypt. Egypt was par excellence the center of Greek culture, with Alexandria as it's glorious symbol, being the second most important city after Rome itself. The Greek influence in these areas lasted until the Arab invasion of the 7th century, when Greek (Byzantine) mostly agricultural economy was replaced by nomadic goat-herding, causing the destruction of agriculture and the irrigation systems that had made the area so rich. In those areas, Christianity was largely or totally wiped out and replaced by Islam. Strangely enough, Ottomans were less opressive than the Arabs, and Greeks not only were allowed to keep their religion, but their control over the economy was permitted until 1918.
+Српски Брат This is from the Wiki page for the Battle of Navarino (1827): "...the Greeks were economically critical [to the Ottomans] , as they dominated the Ottoman Empire's trade through their ownership of much of its merchant shipping. On a personal level, Mahmud considered the Greek revolt a monstrous betrayal by a conquered nation that had always been treated generously by the Porte. " "The fear of the Ottoman Sultan was ... liberation of all regions of the empire containing Greek majorities, including central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, Constantinople itself, western Anatolia, the Aegean islands and Crete and Cyprus, threatening the empire's very existence. " So in 1827, after about 500 years of Turkis Ottoman rule, the Ottoman Empire still featured many areas with heavy or even dominant Greek ethnic presence and of even greater economic importance. The Armenians were not so lucky, they were brutally murdered by the Young Turks in the infamous Armenian Genocide during WW1. With all ups and downs, the Greek community enjoyed a favourable situation, being allowed to retain ethnic majorities in key geographical areas, and control commerce in the Empire. While in some areas there was a process of islamisation, most Christian areas under Ottoman rule were allowed to retain their faith. Except for Bosnia and Albania, no other area in the Balkans was forced en masse to adopt Islam, and these two are small countries making up to something like 5% of the Christian Ottoman posessions. I'm not saying Ottoman rule was a good and tolerant one, far from it. Ottoman rule ment poverty, backwardness, huge taxes, corruption and opression. But it wasn't all evil, as it allowed most peoples under its rule to keep their national identity. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but many people tend to see everything in black or white.
Andrei Fufezan Oh yeah, tell that to the tortured Serbs and the now ethnically wiped out Serbs in Kosovo and Metochia.
+Српски Брат wiped out Serbs in Kosovo? Weren't the Serbs killing the Albanian's in Kosovo?
Dominic Johnson Dude, the region was 100% populated with Serbs in 15th century. In 16th century the Ottoman Empire brings Albanians as loyal muslims to Kosovo. After numerous cleansings committed during the Ottoman rule Serbs made up 20% of the population in 20th century. After that communists bring Albanians to Kosovo and expell Serbs. In 1999 the cleansing continues during the NATO aggression. The cleansing continues further in 2004 under the command of UN and NATO peace-keeping forces. Serbs occupy 15% territory of Kosovo even today. Yeah, poor lil' Albos...
Српски Брат What about the thousands of Albanians killed and expelled under Milosevic's rain as president? Brat I'm not against you I'm only curious and asking questions. Serbs are the nicest people I've ever met.
Kosovo je Srbija zauvek!
The West is about as healthy as Byzantium was by the 1400s--the focus on a general population decline is probably the most real fear here, and corruption is a big part of this time as well. The Constitution is, sadly, a purely optional document. As a lover of history and of Byzantium and of much of Russian history, it might be theorized that the present, reluctant nature of the Russians to truly work with the West might have something to do with an assumption that Byzantium--the main ancestors, culturally, politically, and spiritually, of modern Russia--had sold their souls out for help which never really came. But, ultimately, since Russia and the USA are founded largely by Roman ideals, one wonders who will fall first of the same basic, terrible things. Population rates for both nations are slowing. Really good documentary, thanks for posting!
As an American whose grandparents came from Galicia and were Ukrainians, I must remind people that the influence of Byzantium extends through Kiev on the way to Moscow. You might say Ukrainians gave civilization to Russia!
Those wee Russians, Ukrainians didn't exist
Does this documentary forget that the Rus also tried to sack Constantinople but they failed?
It mentions that as it described the Slavs as being the same as the other barbarians. It says that the Slavs discovered Byzantiums most valuable treasure, God.
They had to settle for God, because the other invaders had already taken all the loot.
well the Rus who attacked Constantinople were most likely lead by vikings seeing how Kieven Rus was under Viking rule at the time...
Dimitris Z. it was infliritrated by the envious ones & killed it from inside .....by the parasitiscums
Dimitris Z. With thanks from England France. ..
Also, the way this documentary obsessively looks West for the source of Byzantium's troubles is a dead give-away that this is Russian propaganda. They did have issues to their West but it was from Mother Russia's fellow Slavs, not Western Europeans. The Slavs were to Byzantium what the Germans were to Rome. But the *vast majority of their issues came from the Islamic people to their east, who actually ended up conquering them. Not that I would expect an accurate historical documentary from Eastern Europe, let alone Russia. But still. They don't even try to be subtle here.
to be fair, the crusaders did sack the place.
Kilpatrick Kirksimmons I definately do agree that this particular document is quite anti-west, but it is unfortunately true that the 4. Crusade was so catastrophic for Byzantium, that it never really recovered fully. Thanks to the crusaders Ottomans could conquer Constantinople far more easily and make Anatolia in the end muslim.
if you google the profeit Mohanmand in tbe Quran you find that invading and conquering Constantinople and Byzantium. you.ll understand how it was in the Muslium blood to do what it did
The westerners paved the way for the fall of Byzantium with the 4th crusade. Don't victimize the west
Jøse Çee what about the massacre of the Latina?
Very interesting analysis - throughout the decline of Byzantium there are many pivitol events that are comparable to those seen in Soviet Russia
I'm still part way through. I have read JJ Norwich's excellent and sympathetic trilogy on Byzantium. I grieve for this great city and civilisation, and am appalled at thè role played by the Catholic West in its demise. I am especially angry at Venice, and to a lesser degree, Genoa, but frankly the Vatican bears great responsibility. A few points, though: Constantine had had a gutful of the corrupt govt in Rome and, as sole emperor of the whole empire, simply moved the centre of govt to his new city, Constantinople (built on the site of Byzantium, and founded on 11.5.330). While there is a practice of confining the term 'Roman empire' to the western empire, and naming the eastern section the 'Byzantine empire', in actual fact the whole continued as the Roman empire. From this perspective, the Roman empire endured until 1453. However, the empire started in 27BC, with Augustine. That gives the Roman empire a duration of 1480 years - but the western empire only 422 years (depending on whether you choose the fall of Rome in 395, or the death of the last western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, 476
Oops, cut off. You can add in the republican era, starting 509BC, which gives the western empire 1148 years' duration, but that's not empire. Course, that gives the whole empire a life of 1962 years. Can't see the argument for backdating the empire to 753BC, though - the founding of the Roman city-State. That's pretty artificial.
Back to the doco...
Yeah, I know, that's 904 years from the founding of the republic till the fall of Rome...
Finished. Tragic. The malaise that befell Constantinople toward the end, the loss of will to live and embracing a culture of death, is very much abroad in the West today. Europe's gone. UK's heading the same way. US is being dragged in that direction but there is still valiant resistance.
There are many scores to settle.
you can bet the catholic church of rome had something to do with it
The invaders were the army of Venice with 400 ships. not the Muhammadan invaders.
+Jan Bode who's talking about the schism. in 1204 when the invasion of 1204happened it seal their separation forever
The 4th Crusade was one of THE most disgraceful episodes in human history. No denying it/
@ScoutSniper true, but catholicks did to many bad things to ortodox
@@ПроститееслиобиделЯсваминесогл look up the massacre of the latins
The irony is that the byzantines hated their western neighboring kingdoms. They saw them and considered them as savages in the middle ages, and used them sometimes to attack their enemies.
Mad love from Serbia/Montenegro.
Byzantine Empire was inherently a ROMAN EMPIRE. It changed its essence only when in Europe was established the Holy Roman Empire by Charlemagne. In that moment the Church gave the duty of defending Italy and the Roman Church to the Franks and no more to the byzantine. So the roads of the two sides of the ex-Roman empire went apart.
Europe is awaiting same
It was called ROMAN empire back then, the term "byzantine" was invented around the 16th century from some German scholars. The west and the east always fought about who is the legal roman empire, that usually between the German Holy Roman Empire and Greek Eastern Roman Empire.
Byzantium included Palestine which was never mentioned
Technically, Palestine isn't a country
Palestinians do not exist they are only an abstract imagination.
NO, palestine was center of christianity in all the world before arabic invasions they made the constantinople to protect palestine , fucking zionists
Palestine is a serious and real "misnomer"
hmmmm, after reading the comments here I am sure there is no hope for humanity
Appreciate the work and useful! Touched by the history and we people of the so called modern age yet not modern at all are actually living the age of destruction because we have abandoned the true values of life ...faith. The story is a great lesson yet they still argue.... and argue till the total destruction from God arrives.
I know my byzantine history, and this is absurd. It is distorted throughout, and in many places just wrong. The byzantine empire only held onto Italy for a few years and trashed it so much the Italians were glad when the barbarians came back. It held onto north Africa for about a hundred years before the Arabs took it.
Anyhow there is no break between Rome and the eastern empire. They were both roman. They were both the same thing.
If this is the kind of thing they show on russian TV I am truly sad.
First elementary and secondary schools in the world? I call bullshit.
For a few years?? Centuries afterwards citizen of Bari rejoiced when they have returned. So much about your knowledge?
Shut up and accept responsibility, even one of the modern Popes apologised.
The Russians are rewriting western history's
Iam not an European or a Christian, but I have always admired the city of two continents, the problems Byz faced like nationality, economic or religious excommunication were faced later by the Russian Empire or the US in later years. So though the problems were new they were solvable. Its just that everything has an expiry date and the Byz was dated at 29/5/1453.
Restore Byzantine empire
Roman Empire, not byzantine.
The eastern roman empire had too its golden age, and it no doubt left its heritage.
Half way through I began to wonder if I was watching a documentary on Medieval Rome (Byzantium) or some Russian attempt of laying claim to being the successors of that system and placing distinctly contemporary biases from the Russian perspective on the people and events of the past. The longer the documentary goes the more it deviates from simple academic historical documentation and more into contemporary correlations, I still consider it an interesting case study into how Russians view the world and themselves though.
Yes , exactly
It's so depressing to consider how much has been wiped out by European leaders and armies over the centuries. The guilty are dead and every generation until eternity are the victims.
If the West had sent even a small amount of troops, the Sultan would have given up the siege.
Matt Foley Why would they? They wanted to see Byzantium falling in pieces. They had secret treaties with the sultan not to help Byzantium and stay neutral. These treaties are well hidden in Vatican archives.
Well said, guys.
+Matt Foley I wish. The west decided to stick to the deal with Byzantium that if the Orthodox decided to be guided by Rome in matters of the Faith the West would provide all the necessary help but if the Orthodox decided against it the West would leave them to themselves (an awful thing to do in any case) There were still some Westerners mercenaries but when they saw that the Emperor himself open a part of the defensive wall to shoot with a canon at the muslims the enemy flooded the wall and it became impossible to win the war that lasted about a 1000 years. The the last westerners gave up and left on their ships waiting while the Emperor and his few troops stood their ground till dead
The lesson for the West here is that it should have always helped Byzantium for when it was left the musulmas continued to spread their horror till Vienna
We would also have today a strong and rich cultural heritage alive and well but as it is now the turks have destroyed even the identity of the land, acting much like the case of the "body snatchers" or the "coo coo bird"
+Matt Foley The west did send troops. Most of the defenders were made up of Venetian, Papal, and Genoese, and the commander on the walls was a Genoese soldier named Giovanni Giustiniani. And it doesn't make sense that the Italians wanted to see the city fall, as both republics had huge economic and trade interests in the city, and they didn't want to risk losing that to the Turks.
+TheusZeusDeus No No buddy you have been fed some rather biased "ill formed opinions" by the way, forget the Turks for the Seljuks had always coveted Constantinople and always had wanted to be it and the only way they could achieve that was by becoming muslim and conquer it, which they did, those body snatcher succeeded
The Byzantine empire did not end at the crusader take over for the crusaders respected i and continued under Latin European rule, Not so with the Turks, Culture, identity, language, religion was destroyed with them and it previous history shoved and under the turkish carpets
In fact the crusaders never intended to take over Constantinople but rather were invited by a legitimate Byzantine prince heir to the throne of Constantinople whose father was deposed and murdered by a Byzantine coup. This prince had promised the crusaders soldiers and supplies. The crusaders succeeded in restoring him to the throne but he was murdered by byzantines who hated his family and now also hated the crusaders. It was only then that the crusaders needed to avenge the prince and receive the payment promised but now denied
You see, it was the play of Byzantine dirty politics that destroyed them, however, the crusaders respected the empire and continued under Latin rule. They where all originally under Latin rule anyway
The empire did finally end at the Turkic arrival but it was the Byzantine dirty politics that made it possible
From Wikipedia: The First Crusade (1095-1099) was the first of a number of crusades that attempted to recapture the Holy Land, called for by Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in 1095. Urban called for a military expedition to aid the Byzantine Empire, which had recently lost most of Anatolia to the Seljuq Turks.
Result: Crusader victory Location: Mostly Levant and Anatolia
Date: 1096-1099
This will also happen to Europe.
Megas_alexandros 88 unless they get rid of the rodent parasitiscums who first killed their history culture to replace with the creationist one...
@@รlเ christianity built europe
@@MrISkater xtianity civilised brought sanity to europe but problem is when people lose faiths motivation but this have not happened with other age old religions
@@รlเ the Church was the one who brought knowledge.
@@MrISkater dont think so early church were not for educational purposes but rather for society building up its got social bringing but glad now to see many convents imparting good education
Does anyone have a link to the 29:52 agni parthene version clear, without the voiceover? It is one of the most beautiful versions I've ever heard, but unfortunately I can't find it anywhere.
Sounds like the situation in Ukraine with the West meddling.
Its designed to, the documentary is a Russian propaganda film.
Russia “meddles” in Ukraine far more than any other country. When was the last time the West invaded and annexed a chunk of Ukraine and supported a separatist rebellion at the same time? 🤔
@@christianjones-hickey7261 Didn't the EU and America support the overthrow of a democratically elected President in 2013
Got a 'like' from me I've listened to this three times while working today, I'll play again because of tweetable material.
Great film.
Could Man know any sadder earthly event than the fall of Constantine City?
sometimes russian propaganda is true :)))) great video:))))
If you are interested in this period of rapid Byzantine decline which lead to the destruction of Constantinople by the West in 1204. Suggest you read Against the Fall of Night by Michael Arnold. His novel is based on through research chronicling the life of the last great Byzantine Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos . A brilliantly written novel about a little known fascinating historical figure who risked everything to save his empire. Highly recommended.
Wrong. Following the assassination of Andonikas I the last Komenian emperor. The successor Angeloi emperors incompetence left the Empire bankrupt and militarily defenseless, the navy was disbanded leaving Constantinople at the mercy of the 4th Crusade. The Angelio emperors Issac and Alexios were a disaster for Byzantium.The rapid military,economic and political decline in the 20 years prior to the sack of 1204 shows how quickly a civilization can fall apart due to incompetent leadership.
Nothing lasts forever.. Even humanity will end.
I'm into it about 5 minutes and I think the guy said Byzantine about 1,000 times.
Why it's this othedox priest telling the story I don't understand
"no empire in human history lasted as long as Byzantium"
the Assyrian empire lasted for 2500 years.
+kantor72 if you count Egypt as an empire then you are correct!
Caroline - 452 Assyrians are a great civilisation but were destroyed several times and then recovered Henderson : the old Assyrian empire, the middle Assyrian empire, the New Assyrians empire which are different .
Moscow is the New Constantinople and the Last!!! Thanks to our Russian Brothers!!!
+Discovios The Russians claim that Moscow is the third Rome that they even claim to call their leader Ceasar(Tsar in russian)
If you win the war, you write the history.
The west won, that's the history.
The truth... now, there's the mystery.
The info in this documentary all sounds like a reinterpretation worthy of thought. A VERY interesting take: thanks for sharing.
The fuck? This is russian propaganda, where is the eastern roman empire?
Eastern Roman Empire = Byzantine Empire
***** He understands it perfectly well, its historical bullshit.
***** what does he understand "perfectly well"?
Кирилл Лукичёв Get back to beating your kids Borat. The eastern empire centered on present day Greece and Turkey.
+Кирилл Лукичёв sorry but the eastern roman empire was in the east mediterranean sea .So greece is what has left of byzantium .That's the reality
Unfortunately, Constantine did not secure silver along with gold, thus plunging small and medium entrepreneurs into a life of feudal serfdom.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver
"The apex and height of human achievement?".....I think not: your statement completely ignored the accomplishments (previous and future) of the Chinese, the peoples of the Indian subcontinent, the Inca, or even the Ottomans or Arabs. Byzantium was a part of a broader, longer human process of cultural creation, expansion, and change......I agree with Zokll Ehbfd entirely that this video is a sad, tragic mix of historical propaganda, although not that of communism mixed with a highly Russo-centric favoring viewpoint but rather that of adherence to religious orthodoxy that happens to serve nationalistic tones. This video is too subjective, too self-serving, and too 'feel good' for those who happen to come from cultures that can trace back to Byzantium. Real history would point out external as well as INTERNAL factors for decline (the Soviet Union crumbled more from within than from pressure from the out-- I see a similar trend arising yet again in today's Russia ***** as the Russian economy is too terribly susceptible to external pressure because of lack of proper fiscal diversification, increased bureaucratic efficiency, and not throwing money into parades, larger tanks and missiles, or fleeting pomp and ceremony to try to make the rest of the world believe that they are more powerful and deserving of respect (hmm, this seems a bit....byzantine, don't you think?)
Spot on comment, totally agree!
Interesting. So, to summarize, if Byzantine had stopped infighting and overthrowing each other, they had the wealth and potential to stick around a lot longer. Selfishness kills a nation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness
This is a blatant hagiography. Byzantium was great, and certainly greater than the Dark Age Europe to its west. But it was hardly the fount of all civilization that this vid makes it out to be, especially after the Islamic Conquests. The tale of Byzantium is basically 1,000 years of shrinking territory, religious squabbles, and barbarian invasions and sieges, with brief spurts of resurgence. It doesn't compare with the united Roman Empire that came before it, or the Exploration/Imperial Age that came after it.
During that time, there was no such a thing called Israel , it was Palestine
Today the countries that represent the byzantine empire are, greece and russia
***** Okay so if Google is right, this means "Serbia!?" but I still don't get what you're trying to say?
***** Serbs were Slav invaders who later wanted to expand against the Empire. They do not deserve to be called "Romans", even if they are Orthodox.
P.S No offense was meant.
P.S.S We still like you.
***** Armenians didn't really care about the Empire either, mostly due to religious differences.
***** Serbs never had a kingdom in the empire (at least as far as I know). They were intruders, like any other Slav population, who threatened to "steal" the Empire's identity. If you were part of the empire, where were you when we tried to resurrect it? Hm?
***** 1. Wow you really talk a lot and only half of it is/might be true.
2. The "Romei" were exclusively Greeks who called themselves "Romans" (Ρωμαίοι) because they were an accepted culture since the conquest of the Greek city-states by Rome. Serbs were not Romans, they were Slavs with different traditions, origins and culture.
3. Greeks were the majority of the empire until the Slavs came downwards. Otherwise the official language would have been Slavic.
4. No we don't compare you to Bulgars. In fact we like you (Serbia and Russia mostly) due to religion. We (or at least I) know exactly what Bulgars have done, where they're from and what was their culture.
5. Byzantium couldn't have ended because of 10 million CITIZEN and unorganised Slavs. It took 1000 years for Constantinople to be taken permanently and it was only taken because the walls were in a seriously bad state and the Empire was economically and militarily weak, thanks to our western "friends".
6. The eagles on your flags only tell me that you're nothing but wanna-bes, like the former Holy Roman Empire. Should I accept the Germans as Romans because they had an eagle in their flag? No fucking way!
7. There is no theory. Only truth with some... non-truth theor-ish facts. Still, it's pretty accurate.
8. "So please quit that tone because All their hisotry Serbs married Byzantine princeses and vice versa." And? Roman (or "Byzantine") princes and princesses married Germans and Franks too, does that mean I should accept them as Romans? I don't think so. Marriages were only means of a temporary alliance.
9. Get your facts straight. The only accepted cultures in the empire were Greeks (Romans basically) and maybe Armenians. *No one else!*
10. "Look up the Holy monastery Hilandar on HOLY GREEK mount ATHOS in today's Greece and many others.. How were they built?
Hilandar WAS BUILT BY STEFAN NEMANJA. and St Sava IN 11TH CENTURY." Sounds like another lame excuse...
11. The "Μεγάλη Ιδέα" was an Idea of a bigger and stronger "Greece" who would retake our lost lands. Not just islands...
12. You didn't protect shit. You didn't even help us when we needed you in 1204 and later in 1453. Hell, you couldn't even protect your much-stronger selves against the Turks.
Doesn't pull any punches, lovin it! Great doco, thanks for the upload.
The Western Europeans were not barbarians when they raided Constantinople. They had great kingdoms and their own empires(the union of Norway with Denmark, HRE, etc.). Im supposed to believe that only loot from a sacked city spurred the growth of an entire continent for centuries to come? The sacking of cities has occurred before without these effects. This all sounds like Russian propaganda, saying that the west only became good because it stole the wealth of Constantinople through raids, and saying that the business dealings of the west are meant to be mistrusted.
Grea documentary. Such a great enpire but not talked about enough.
Where was russia to help if they care so much
Sadly under the Golden Horde mongoloid thugs.
Sorry, when DID Russia help?
*****
I meant when did Russia help Byzantium and then Greece. And about the nazis, if it wasn't for Italy and Normandy, we can never be sure of the outcome on the eastern front.
When the greek war of independence started in 1820 in Transylvania, Russia had promised to help, as an orthodox patron and enemy of the Ottomans. On the contrary, they provided no help at all and they even allowed the Sultan's army to enter the Danubian Principalities to terminate the revolt. The tsar aligned with the "Holy Alliance" of Europe and he fired his minister of Foreign Affairs, Ioannis Capodistrias, and ethnic Greek from the island of Corfu.
Russia did finally defeat the turkish-egyptian fleet in Navarino, but they did so on agreement with the English and the French.
In the 1st Balkan War Russia helped Serbia and Bulgaria because they were slavic nations. Greece is not. Its only connection with Russia was the religious one. In the 2nd Balkan war Russia wanted Bulgaria to expand so that it would have a vassal country with a mediterranean coastline. They supported these claims in Berlin but Greece was used as a counter-balance to that by the western allies. Greek victories helped establish dominance over Macedonia and Thrace. Russia did not like that.
Also, the USSR helped the turkish army of Kemal Ataturk recover after WW I and win the war in Anatolia effectively wiping out the greek-speaking population of the area. Lenin funded them and equipped them.
Finally, Russia tried to establish a communist state in Greece by helping the local communist front, guiding the country into a bitter civil war that devastated it completely (1945-1949). Not wanting to face the official State of Greece in open war nor the western allies supporting the country, they limited their support to vague promises, leaflets and propaganda coming from their vassal state of Yugoslavia. This kept the greek communists fighting in hope of soviet support which never came and of course let to their utter destruction. This war still polarises and creates tension to people in Greece.
After these events, Greece became a member of NATO and later on the EU, effectively choosing the opposite side in the Cold War. Russia went on to support Tito on his alleged claims of a "macedonian republic" which is the main reason for today's naming dispute with FYROM. Of course, Russia recognises the country by the name "Macedonia" when the western european countries like France, Germany or Spain do not.
In conlusion, Russia doesn't give two shits about Greece. They still want to sell weapons to Greece like the US and Germany, maintaining the tensions with Turkey and ensuring a great income from the situation. Russians are also coming to Greece as tourists, more and more with each year, leaving enough money to keep Greeks happy. But that's as far this relationship goes.
Hope you enjoyed the history lesson, sorry for the long text. Here is a *potato*
John Saf
Προσπαθούμε φίλε! Και ειδικά όταν ακούω συνέχεια για τους Ρώσους που είναι αδέρφια μας και πάντα μας στήριζαν κλπ. κλπ. στην Ελλάδα δεν μπορώ να μην τα πω..
civilization in western europe was not completely absent but was steadily growing, particularly in southern Europe at that time. Probably what got the Byzantine decline was their mayor corruption something lacking in western Europe
+2coryman look, Russians are better united with the West than being trouble makers. Looking in perspective to the future, your anti Western attitude will never benefit anyone and you become the greatest sore looser
i do not understand why Russians are so obsessed trying to show themselves as the continuity of Byzantine Empire. They are not. Just because they have some cultural heirs, it does not mean they are equals. Moscow can not be compare with Rome or Constantinople neither with the civilizations they were. Russian are a copy of many cultures and after Constantinople nobody did not know where Moscow was at that time till Pedro the great. if it is in that way, where are the roads to get Moscow after Constantinople.
Basic point is when severe trust deficit occurs between people and govt the result is obvious "The Fall"
This is ridiculous simply because the presenter is an Orthodox priest, and not a historian. Everything has an obvious propaganda spin to it. However, the fact is still that at the time, the Byzantine world and the east in general was much more civilized, cultured, literate and rich than the west. This shouldn't be a problem to accept, even if you're proud of the west.
Sadly there's nothing left to be proud of. The west has become the great satan!
The fall of Byzantium sounds disturbingly similar to what's happening in modern Europe (and to a lesser extent the US): declining birthrates, demographic replacement by an incompatible culture, loss of faith in the native culture, declining economy, and so forth. This time, unfortunately, there's no new Western Europe or undiscovered Americas to escape to. Unless someone figures out a practical way to colonize Mars...
Interting: about other plants this is what the politicians had to care and putting on the table, although (for the moment) that is kind of Science Fiction. Infact, the main and basic problem nobody admit is that we humans are too much numerous on the earth.
In the USA, we also have our own "barbarians" to contend with : native-born Blacks. They have ruined a nation that lead the world in the 1950's, all in the name of "equality". Reminds me of old saying: "Cut off the legs of the giants, so the midgets feel good about themselves." USA education system, once the best in the world, is now producing "functional illiterates", thanks to the integration movement and mixture with Blacks.
Sad facts. Unfortunately, Blackmen didn't want to go to America.
I'm sorry, but this documentary is a mess. At times it sounds like an old Soviet propaganda piece. Trying to blame the West for the problems of Byzantium is bizarre, to say the least. There didn't seem to be any chronological consistency at all. Other than a couple of mentions of the names of emperors, we had no idea when anything occurred. The primary problem of Byzantium, the lack of clear lines of succession, is at best glossed over.
+Christian Libertarian always the catholic church wanted to destroy the orthodox .The crusaders destroyed byzantium .If they didn't conquer constantinople and stole the treasures of constantinople which even now they are in many cities of italy and western europe , byzantium would have hold for many centuries .After 1204 byzantium never regained his power.When the ottomans sieged constantinople , the byzantine people didn't want to unite with the catholic church .They were saying this ''καλύτερα το τουρκικό φακιόλι παρά η παπική τιάρα'' which means ''we prefer the ottomans and not the pope's diadem/tiara''. This is the truth
+Kenny K Na do some research. Its mostly crap.
+VAGGELIS NATSIDIS ughhh, That was what the Byzantine wished, but ONLY until the turkic people were really present inside the walls of Constantinople and they became like the "bodysnatchers and coo coo birds" bent on erasing the greek and roman identity, including erasing the FAITH of the population which continues to this day
By contrast, when the germanics took over the West, after some time they tried to restore Rome as it was. But of course we know that they had destroyed the system and knowhow
SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
In retrospect we can CLEARLY SEE what would have been the wise course of action, To get along with your blood brothers and at least be united in the big picture, Constantinople would be proudly standing today and if Rome had behaved preserving its 'original' virtues adding to it Christianity and not abusing its slaves , there wouldn't be a broken line in Roman government to this day and our world would be much much more advance indeed
+nilpoint regardless, when nations morals decay they go into decline, that involves loosing foresight in everything needed
losing.
nations don't have morals. people might have, usually based on bullshit religion.
This is a very well made video documentary about Byzantium. I found most of the facts as true. He is explaining that the judicial system does come from the Romans and concentrates to what caused the fall of the byzantine empire. Of course no historical narrative is perfect so if people are struggling to find flaws , they will surely find some ..because there are some points that should be mentioned more clearly.
The ancestors of the Russians that found the glorious orthodox religion so appealing were also Barbarians the Swedish Varangian Rus..