You've successfully broken down one of the wildest (activity-wise) historical reigns into a palpable and comprehensive video. And to think Zeno did this without the benefit of xanax!
Thersites, I enjoyed your monolog on Zeno, & I'm happy to see you illustrate your monologs with ancient coins. The photo associated with my RUclips account is a solidus of the emperor Zeno, probably the finest known example of this type. This coin is also illustrated on my Pinterest website also. You're welcome to use any of the coins on my Pinterest site in any of your presentations.
The fact that I've never heard of Zenos - nor the intricate layers of intrigue that saw his ascendance to the throne - even from the RUclips history community which is usually pretty on-the-ball when it comes to obscure history - is ridiculous. He is - so far - the most interesting emperor, though that's sure to change it's an interesting set of circumstances to be sure.
For me this is a second time I heard of him First time was when I watched Unbiased history of Rome which is such a shame Parody entertainment channel teaches more history than the actuall ones
@@lilestojkovicii6618 the strange thing is that that channel affords a vision of the hole roman empire, that no other media company has ever done (maybe I am wrong, but its still strange).
Also, I think that considerable Roman/Greek influence was omitted to slandering Zeno's name and especially that of his heirs. I would not be surprised if there were some nefarious machinations with the death of one or both of the sons. As much as they needed Zenos to rectify the dumpster fire named Basiliscus, they did not want an Imperial dynasty that wasn't "Roman". Also also, his reluctance to put people to death is actually pretty genius - I mean, one guy's captain assassinating some folks was enough to earn him the nick-name of "butcher" - what would the people think of this "barbarian" lopping peoples' heads off? He wanted to counter the stigma. Also also also, could it be that the revolt occurred in 484 and he was only able to subdue the revolt in 489?
I'm sure when ppl heard what happened in the west in 476 weren't very shocked at all. Even in late antiquity the Roman people still saw it as one Empire. With Odoacer vassalage the empire just seemed to the east as one again. Maybe finally they felt there would be no civil wars to fight in west anymore. No Constantinople could turely be the only capital of the whole Empire, with sole Emperor in the east.
I mean we know that within a generation there was a lot of self consciousness that the homeland and heart of the classical empire wasn't directly controlled by Romans, I'm sure not everyone cared but many would of
Nice videos. Why do you call the Empire during Zeno, "Byzantine" in the description? The Senate of Rome sent the insignia of theWest Roman Emperor to Zeno, East Roman Emperor according to Gibbon.. Where "Byzantine" comes into play? Also, the Isaurians talked in a Luwian descending dialect not Latin.
For the 5th Century Eastern Emperors and perhaps all the way up to Heraclius, I think that the terms "Roman" and "Byzantine" are more or less interchangeable. If I alternate then it is mostly because I'm on the fence about which term is more applicable to the time period. I suppose the Isaurians using a Luwian dialect would explain why they had trouble gaining acceptance from the population of Constantinople.
Fair enough. If I had to give an input regarding the naming I would say that there is no dispute about Roman and 'Byzantine' or 'Greek' until the coronation of Charlemagne. Even the Pope in his letters called the Emperor in Constantinople "Imperatorum Romanorum". After the questionable death of Zeno, the crowd demanded "A Roman Emperor, an Orthodox Emperor". The name of Zeno was in a luwian/anatolian descending dialect possibly, Tarasis son of Kodis from Rusumblada, Kodis-sa is genitive "of Kodis".
Interesting. From what I understand the term "Byzantine" was invented by French scholars in about the 18th Century. The only reason why I like it is because it helps to distinguish and set apart the medieval, eastern history of Rome from the earlier period.
Initially, as Prof. Ahrweiler mentioned, was used in Sorbonne in the 16th to categorize the the Greek texts of the Empire. "Byzantine". That makes no sense as well since there are were already 300 ys old christian Greek theological texts in Justinian's empire. I doubt if someone seriously claims that Justinian was a "Byzantine" Emperor - whatever that means. Of course there were changes in the Empire. From Latiin speaking, "pagan" (another misused term), Republic, to Greek speaking, Christian, "constitutional" Monarchy. But that happened in 1000 ys and as mentioned, never disputed before 800 AD.
On the subject of the Samaritan Revolt I find the desire of modern scholars to say no the Persecution came after the Revolt to be an offensive Revision. Just like the revisions people try to do regarding the Hasmonean Revolt. The Empire has been increasingly trying to standardize Christianity as the only legal religion in the Empire for a Century by this point, it's absurd to suggest the Samaritans revolted for no reason after being perfectly content for centuries. We also know archeologically that the Marian Church he built at Gerizim is similar to others being made at the same time like the Church of Mary's Seat north of Bethlehem.
So much of your argument is based on when Zeno could have been there personally. The Problem is I don't think the Samaritan account actually intended us to think he was there personally, these kinds of Semitic Texts frequently treat a King and his Kingdom as inseparable entities. I don't think Antiochus Epiphanes personally performed a Big Sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple a detail not even in the books of Maccabees, but I do believe his policies result in an Idol of Zeus being set up on the Brazen Altar in December of 167 BC. So I don't think Zeno was ever personally in Samaria, it was the actions of his Regime. A Church of specially Mary Theotokos being built at this time was probably tied to the whole Henotikon thing, Emperors trying to make peace with the Miaphysites loved to scapegoat the Nestorians and stress their common support of Theotokos. And 482-484 is the timeframe for that being a priority.
No, I think that you are thinking of "xenos". I'm not sure about the meaning or etymology of the name Zeno, but I have always assumed that he adopted it because of the philosopher Zeno who founded Stoicism.
@@haniwa7006 Surprising how many of these orthodox emperors had pagan names. Thinking here of Heraclius the saviour of The True Cross named after Heracles.
Ball Stranger in greek is ξένος or κελτος which gave οι Κελτοι, the Celts : bizzare barbars who washed their hairs with their proper urine, sacrified humans to their gods and affronted completely nude the letal spata or pungio of the roman soldiers.
Perhaps some great novelist can do for Zeno what Robert Graves did for Claudius. Of course, that would require people reading high literature outside of a college assignment, so that's not going to happen
The fact that 70-80years after his reign people wanted him back, to rise up again im troubling times. He was also very loyal to his soldiers. When their warship crashed in to a coast. Constantine stayed and helped his men to get a proper funeral. Back to my first point, in 830 when there was an iconaclast vs aconaphile riot going on. The iconaclasts and soldiers broke in to the temple of holy apostalates knelt to his tomb andstarted praying. He also one decisive victorys agianst the bulgars and arabs.
Ah, I see. You want to get at the man behind the legend. That's understandable. I wasn't aware that his name was invoked in the 830 riot, but I guess that given his status as the most iconoclast of all of the iconoclasts, that isn't all that surprising.
The way you pronounced Odoacer made me think he was some native American chieftain communicating with Romans . I was greatly concerned that I may have accidently clicked on a fantasy lore video.
You've successfully broken down one of the wildest (activity-wise) historical reigns into a palpable and comprehensive video. And to think Zeno did this without the benefit of xanax!
My history knowledge is vast from reading thousands of books, and I know almost nothing about Byzantium. It is very interesting new for me.
wow. hope you're very much a byzantine fan now
You could say the people were ZENOPHOBIC !! , ill see myself out
Xdddd
I wonder if he ever thought of that pun (works as well in greek); silently chuckling to himself xD
Thersites, I enjoyed your monolog on Zeno, & I'm happy to see you illustrate your monologs with ancient coins. The photo associated with my RUclips account is a solidus of the emperor Zeno, probably the finest known example of this type. This coin is also illustrated on my Pinterest website also. You're welcome to use any of the coins on my Pinterest site in any of your presentations.
This is phenomenal content. I’m so happy I found your account, even if it was five years late.
Your channel is amazing, thanks for making these videos
The Tabula tit bit is pretty cool. The luckiest thing to ever happen to Zeno was Him recording he's defeat in Tabula.
The fact that I've never heard of Zenos - nor the intricate layers of intrigue that saw his ascendance to the throne - even from the RUclips history community which is usually pretty on-the-ball when it comes to obscure history - is ridiculous. He is - so far - the most interesting emperor, though that's sure to change it's an interesting set of circumstances to be sure.
For me this is a second time I heard of him
First time was when I watched Unbiased history of Rome which is such a shame
Parody entertainment channel teaches more history than the actuall ones
@@lilestojkovicii6618 the strange thing is that that channel affords a vision of the hole roman empire, that no other media company has ever done (maybe I am wrong, but its still strange).
Also, I think that considerable Roman/Greek influence was omitted to slandering Zeno's name and especially that of his heirs. I would not be surprised if there were some nefarious machinations with the death of one or both of the sons. As much as they needed Zenos to rectify the dumpster fire named Basiliscus, they did not want an Imperial dynasty that wasn't "Roman". Also also, his reluctance to put people to death is actually pretty genius - I mean, one guy's captain assassinating some folks was enough to earn him the nick-name of "butcher" - what would the people think of this "barbarian" lopping peoples' heads off? He wanted to counter the stigma.
Also also also, could it be that the revolt occurred in 484 and he was only able to subdue the revolt in 489?
Great video man!
Gibbon was after glory and anecdotal stories... and he said Forget the Rest! Such a wealth of great history which is almost lost.
I'm sure when ppl heard what happened in the west in 476 weren't very shocked at all. Even in late antiquity the Roman people still saw it as one Empire. With Odoacer vassalage the empire just seemed to the east as one again. Maybe finally they felt there would be no civil wars to fight in west anymore. No Constantinople could turely be the only capital of the whole Empire, with sole Emperor in the east.
I mean we know that within a generation there was a lot of self consciousness that the homeland and heart of the classical empire wasn't directly controlled by Romans, I'm sure not everyone cared but many would of
Your channel is amazing. Liked and subbed.
35:00 when someone is good at "intercepting" letters it could also mean that they are good at writing them.
Kinda depends, there's be a lot of external things on the letter to verify who it came from like a unique seal and signature
Looks like a reassessment of Zeno is catching on in the youtube history community, even calling him the 'savior of Byzantium'.
Really? Who else is saying that?
@@ThersitestheHistorian I got linked to this video in a comment by him on my channel, so i guess me
Do you concidor Zeno the greateast emperor or just ur favourite?
Just my favorite, although right now I feel myself being drawn toward Basil I the Macedonian.
I loved Gibbon, even though he was short with things he didn’t find preeminent, he’s still my eye opener and mentor.
awesome video!
why do you have the Poles in Pannonia at 39:00
I got 99 problems being imperator aint one
Lol underrated
notice this...
You might enjoy Zeno by Peter Crawford.
Nice videos. Why do you call the Empire during Zeno, "Byzantine" in the description? The Senate of Rome sent the insignia of theWest Roman Emperor to Zeno, East Roman Emperor according to Gibbon.. Where "Byzantine" comes into play?
Also, the Isaurians talked in a Luwian descending dialect not Latin.
For the 5th Century Eastern Emperors and perhaps all the way up to Heraclius, I think that the terms "Roman" and "Byzantine" are more or less interchangeable. If I alternate then it is mostly because I'm on the fence about which term is more applicable to the time period. I suppose the Isaurians using a Luwian dialect would explain why they had trouble gaining acceptance from the population of Constantinople.
Fair enough. If I had to give an input regarding the naming I would say that there is no dispute about Roman and 'Byzantine' or 'Greek' until the coronation of Charlemagne. Even the Pope in his letters called the Emperor in Constantinople "Imperatorum Romanorum".
After the questionable death of Zeno, the crowd demanded "A Roman Emperor, an Orthodox Emperor". The name of Zeno was in a luwian/anatolian descending dialect possibly, Tarasis son of Kodis from Rusumblada, Kodis-sa is genitive "of Kodis".
Interesting. From what I understand the term "Byzantine" was invented by French scholars in about the 18th Century. The only reason why I like it is because it helps to distinguish and set apart the medieval, eastern history of Rome from the earlier period.
Initially, as Prof. Ahrweiler mentioned, was used in Sorbonne in the 16th to categorize the the Greek texts of the Empire. "Byzantine". That makes no sense as well since there are were already 300 ys old christian Greek theological texts in Justinian's empire. I doubt if someone seriously claims that Justinian was a "Byzantine" Emperor - whatever that means.
Of course there were changes in the Empire. From Latiin speaking, "pagan" (another misused term), Republic, to Greek speaking, Christian, "constitutional" Monarchy. But that happened in 1000 ys and as mentioned, never disputed before 800 AD.
Periodization debates are always fun, aren't they?
On the subject of the Samaritan Revolt I find the desire of modern scholars to say no the Persecution came after the Revolt to be an offensive Revision. Just like the revisions people try to do regarding the Hasmonean Revolt. The Empire has been increasingly trying to standardize Christianity as the only legal religion in the Empire for a Century by this point, it's absurd to suggest the Samaritans revolted for no reason after being perfectly content for centuries.
We also know archeologically that the Marian Church he built at Gerizim is similar to others being made at the same time like the Church of Mary's Seat north of Bethlehem.
So much of your argument is based on when Zeno could have been there personally. The Problem is I don't think the Samaritan account actually intended us to think he was there personally, these kinds of Semitic Texts frequently treat a King and his Kingdom as inseparable entities. I don't think Antiochus Epiphanes personally performed a Big Sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple a detail not even in the books of Maccabees, but I do believe his policies result in an Idol of Zeus being set up on the Brazen Altar in December of 167 BC.
So I don't think Zeno was ever personally in Samaria, it was the actions of his Regime.
A Church of specially Mary Theotokos being built at this time was probably tied to the whole Henotikon thing, Emperors trying to make peace with the Miaphysites loved to scapegoat the Nestorians and stress their common support of Theotokos. And 482-484 is the timeframe for that being a priority.
Basiliscus reminds me of Mitt Romney for some reason...
These were ROMANS, not "Byzantine".
nice
Gibbon is so full of prejudice, that should be pointed as the counterexample of a historian.
dumb conment
What sources do you use ?
Would the word "Zeno" mean foreigner in Greek -which would be appropriate for someone born in a remote region.
No, I think that you are thinking of "xenos". I'm not sure about the meaning or etymology of the name Zeno, but I have always assumed that he adopted it because of the philosopher Zeno who founded Stoicism.
Comes from Latin 'ZENO', which in turn comes from Greek 'Ζήνων', an alternative form or derivative of 'Zeus' (Yes, as in the King of all Gods)
@@haniwa7006
Surprising how many of these orthodox emperors had pagan names.
Thinking here of Heraclius the saviour of The True Cross named after Heracles.
The original name of emperor Zeno was TARASSICODISSA and not Theresia !
Zeno the unlucky
Long-eye-nus...
Le Benis
Savior of Byzantium destroyer of Rome
Ball
Stranger in greek is ξένος or κελτος which gave οι Κελτοι, the Celts : bizzare barbars who washed their hairs with their proper urine, sacrified humans to their gods and affronted completely nude the letal spata or pungio of the roman soldiers.
Perhaps some great novelist can do for Zeno what Robert Graves did for Claudius. Of course, that would require people reading high literature outside of a college assignment, so that's not going to happen
they are not monophysites! they are miaphysites... and orthodox.. called oriental orthodox
5:25 ancient roman aliens
Constantine V...? Sorry ill stop
LOL, when I get to Constantine V, I will dedicate the video to you. What is it about Constantine V that you find so interesting?
The fact that 70-80years after his reign people wanted him back, to rise up again im troubling times. He was also very loyal to his soldiers. When their warship crashed in to a coast. Constantine stayed and helped his men to get a proper funeral. Back to my first point, in 830 when there was an iconaclast vs aconaphile riot going on. The iconaclasts and soldiers broke in to the temple of holy apostalates knelt to his tomb andstarted praying. He also one decisive victorys agianst the bulgars and arabs.
Sry for grammar. I am typing on me phone
Thersites the Historian oh and thanks for replying
Ah, I see. You want to get at the man behind the legend. That's understandable. I wasn't aware that his name was invoked in the 830 riot, but I guess that given his status as the most iconoclast of all of the iconoclasts, that isn't all that surprising.
The way you pronounced Odoacer made me think he was some native American chieftain communicating with Romans . I was greatly concerned that I may have accidently clicked on a fantasy lore video.
It makes sense, since Latin doesn't use a soft c. Odoaker.