Lessons from the fall of Byzantium

[Carpathian Wolf]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

First things first, don't post until you've watched all of it

Anyway I think this shows with very much depth what happened in Byzantium and how the Roman Empire finally succumbed. The greatest enemies in the end weren't the Turks or the Caliphate, but the westerners. The enemies in the east had reached the gates of Constantinople many times throughout the Empire's history and it always bounced back to one extent or another. The western nations, out of jealousy, simple mindedness and self interest were the ones with the poisoned dagger in their hand. At least the Muslims fought with their saber face to face with you.

Some people were wondering about my comment in the Crimea War concerning France and England's choice to help Russia against the Turks. It has nothing to do with catholic, Orthodox or Muslim. It has to do simply with the physical fact of "being in the middle." I can not say that human nature would be any different if some roles were switched around. What I can say is why what happened.

[Santini]

Watching now.
I suspect they're gonna blab about western jealousy of the byzantine stranglehold on trade

[ivan_the_terrible]

How to Distroy a state

[bushbush]

How to Distroy a state

what what...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=distroy

[Santini]

Shhhhhhhh.... just watch the show. It's really, really well done.

[Monarchist]

I will never forget John Romer's explanation of Byzantine history in his four-part series. What a treasure that ancient Roman remnant was... Never forget the tragedy of Βλαχερναί. When the gates of Blachernae were thrown open on that terrible May afternoon in 1453, such a legacy faded. What lesson do I learn most of all from Byzantium?

Don't leave the gate to your northernmost bastion unlocked.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

I can't see because internets slow, but from my mothers family, my families Byzantine as my fathers is Portuguese, and I know my . So yeah ever heard of the fourth crusade? How many resources that took out of Byzantium. Its because the west hated the fact that Byzantium seperated into another type of Catholicism against the Papacy, and basically they weren't obeying them like dogs, so therefore they wanted them gone, similar to England and in some cases HRE.

[ivan_the_terrible]

So yeah ever heard of the fourth crusade? How many resources that took out of Byzantium. Its because the west hated the fact that Byzantium seperated into another type of Catholicism against the Papacy, and basically they weren't obeying them like dogs, so therefore they wanted them gone, similar to England and in some cases HRE.

That's not why the 4th Crusade was diverted.

[motiv-8]

The western nations, out of jealousy, simple mindedness and self interest were the ones with the poisoned dagger in their hand.

Or, you know, it could have something to do with regular massacres of Latins in Constantinople and the machinations of dispossessed Emperors recruiting Latins to take back the throne and then not paying them. Or perhaps its the regular bullying of Italian city-states, or the pompous and arrogant nature of the imperial court in its dealings with Western dignitaries and visitors. You know, that whole host of hostility that dated back centuries over a doctrinal dispute turned political -storm. Way to present a singularly one-sided and inaccurate portrayal.

It is absolutely sad how ignorant people are of the Fourth Crusade.

Never forget the tragedy of Βλαχερναί. When the gates of Blachernae were thrown open on that terrible May afternoon in 1453, such a legacy faded.

Oh Christ, are you ing kidding me? Worse things have happened to cities than what happened to Constantinople. For being such a tragedy the city sure did recover quickly and thrive under those despicable Ottomans. Pure latter-day nationalist vomit, when in reality the Byzantine Empire had long faded into obscurity, a weak, corrupt, and decadent city-state with a ruling class that fought each other as much as they paid attention to their enemies.

This is why instead of spamming Youtube vids you should rely on academic works on the Byzantine Empire.. Facts without the rose-tinted latter-day Greco-Orthodox nationalist nonsense.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Predictable.

Or, you know, it could have something to do with regular massacres of Latins in Constantinople and the machinations of dispossessed Emperors recruiting Latins to take back the throne and then not paying them. Or perhaps its the regular bullying of Italian city-states, or the pompous and arrogant nature of the imperial court in its dealings with Western dignitaries and visitors. You know, that whole host of hostility that dated back centuries over a doctrinal dispute turned political -storm. Way to present a singularly one-sided and inaccurate portrayal.

Regular massacres? You mean the riots due to the "Latins" (term for catholics) corruptible fashion in which they took advantage of the locals? It didn't justify what those few did to all the westerners in the city but for you to portray it as "regular massacres" is pretty dishonest.

What regular bullying of the Italian city states? And what arrogant nature of the imperial court?

Oh Christ, are you ing kidding me? Worse things have happened to cities than what happened to Constantinople. For being such a tragedy the city sure did recover quickly and thrive under those despicable Ottomans. Pure latter-day nationalist vomit, when in reality the Byzantine Empire had long faded into obscurity, a weak, corrupt, and decadent city-state with a ruling class that fought each other as much as they paid attention to their enemies.

No other city as Constantinople had the same position however. The level of culture and advancement in contrast to those surrounding it.

No one denied there was corruption in Constantinople. That's one of the prime reasons in the video if you watched them, for why the Empire fell. Now are you reacting against the videos or just what people are saying here. Did you even watch the videos?

This is why instead of spamming Youtube vids you should rely on academic works on the Byzantine Empire.. Facts without the rose-tinted latter-day Greco-Orthodox nationalist nonsense.

Sure we could rely on your expertise on Byzantineology which you majored in, right?

[motiv-8]

Predictable.

Well I should like to think that it would be no surprise that I would come to correct nationalist vitriol.

Regular massacres? You mean the riots due to the "Latins" (term for catholics) corruptible fashion in which they took advantage of the locals? It didn't justify what those few did to all the westerners in the city but for you to portray it as "regular massacres" is pretty dishonest.

Did it or did it not happen several times? If the later massacres towards 1204 were not nearly as significant, it is only because so many were killed in the 1180s. I also love how you twist the situation into making it the Latins' fault for being deficient. Certainly the Holocaust was the Jews' fault for being corruptible to German culture, too. I so hate playing to Godwin's Law, but when it fits so well...

What regular bullying of the Italian city states? And what arrogant nature of the imperial court?

The demands that Pisa, Genoa, Venice recognize the ruler of Constantinople as the "Emperor of the Romans" if they wanted to have any kind of trade relations, when all three states could easily look down the coast at Rome (and the Romagna) and say, "What?" The playing the cities against each other for trade favors, which did little but contribute to the instability of the empire's European possessions.

The arrogant nature recorded by visits to the imperial court -- Luitprand of Cremona being the most available example; the interactions between Byzantines and Latin crusaders. Surely you are not going to claim that the poor reputation of the Greeks was produced out of thin air? I would surely agree that it was enflamed by doctrinal differences, and I should like to head off the sure to come "but the Latins were barbarians!" position by saying, yes, they surely did pillage great swaths of land on their way to the Levant. To adopt a position of "omg awesome Greeks omg awful barbaric Catholics" has no intelligence behind it.

No other city as Constantinople had the same position however. The level of culture and advancement in contrast to those surrounding it.

Uh, yeah, it had the same level of culture and advancement, if not moreso, after 1453.

No one denied there was corruption in Constantinople. That's one of the prime reasons in the video if you watched them, for why the Empire fell. Now are you reacting against the videos or just what people are saying here. Did you even watch the videos?

no I didn't watch the videos -- I have much better sources for learning about Byzantine history than Youtube. Do Youtube videos have footnotes? Peer review? Scholarly content and insight?

Let's put it this way -- if you watched the videos and one of the major points you have to take from it and discuss here is nonsense about the "poisoned dagger" in the hands of the Latins as being responsible, then there is absolutely nothing of value that those videos could possibly contribute.

Sure we could rely on your expertise on Byzantineology which you majored in, right?

Or you could not twist other people's words and make up. Since when did "academic works on Byzantine history" equate to making sarcastic comments about me? Grow the up sometime.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Well I should like to think that it would be no surprise that I would come to correct nationalist vitriol.

But "Byzantine" or "Roman" isn't really a nationality is it?

Did it or did it not happen several times? If the later massacres towards 1204 were not nearly as significant, it is only because so many were killed in the 1180s. I also love how you twist the situation into making it the Latins' fault for being deficient. Certainly the Holocaust was the Jews' fault for being corruptible to German culture, too.

Um but I just said right in the post you quoted that it didn't justify why it happened. The abuses of the Italians held the city in an economic strangle hold. Nevermind the fact that the Italians would often go and kill one another causing major unrest in the city itself. If we really want to "keep score" i could always point out to how the crusades pillaged the Roman lands all through out their travels.

But awesome job going to the Hitler cliche internet argument.

The demands that Pisa, Genoa, Venice recognize the ruler of Constantinople as the "Emperor of the Romans" if they wanted to have any kind of trade relations, when all three states could easily look down the coast at Rome (and the Romagna) and say, "What?"

Well considering the Emperor of the Roman Empire was the Emperor of Romans. Baselion ton Romaeon and all that. They could look at the coast of Rome and see a glimpse of what once WAS.

The arrogant nature recorded by visits to the imperial court -- Luitprand of Cremona being the most available example; the interactions between Byzantines and Latin crusaders. Surely you are not going to claim that the poor reputation of the Greeks was produced out of thin air? I would surely agree that it was enflamed by doctrinal differences, and I should like to head off the sure to come "but the Latins were barbarians!" position by saying, yes, they surely did pillage great swaths of land on their way to the Levant. To adopt a position of "omg awesome Greeks omg awful barbaric Catholics" has no intelligence behind it.

Produced out of thin air? I dunno let's ask Charlemagne. He pretty much did JUST that and the attitude had been a growing trend since then.

Uh, yeah, it had the same level of culture and advancement, if not moreso, after 1453.

But not before 1204. Constantinople pretty much was in a coma since 1204 and died in 1453.

no I didn't watch the videos -- I have much better sources for learning about Byzantine history than Youtube. Do Youtube videos have footnotes? Peer review? Scholarly content and insight?

Well I like to read the books as well but the thread is about the video. I don't see why you're throwing such a hissy fit with name calling and all that. It was just a discussion on the video. If you don't want to be part of it, well don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Nobody is forcing you to post here. The least you could do is follow the rules of the thread, watch the video and then comment if you like. A bit of civility would be much appreciated.

Or you could not twist other people's words and make up. Since when did "academic works on Byzantine history" equate to making sarcastic comments about me? Grow the up sometime.

You were the one talking about how you were some major at some huge university concerning Byzantine history. I believed you and was fairly indifferent to it all regardless. It was only until later that it was found out that that wasn't the case that the wave of funny hit my PM box.

SPQR pope says whut?

[motiv-8]

But "Byzantine" or "Roman" isn't really a nationality is it?

Not any more, no, but romanticism about the Byzantine Empire circulates around two things, modern Greek nationalism and Orthodox nationalist-type propaganda. Thus my statement about Greco-Orthodox nationalist nonsense. It really doesn't matter that you're not Greek because you follow squarely in the second category, relying on Orthodox doctrine to color your views rather than actual factual accuracy.

Um but I just said right in the post you quoted that it didn't justify why it happened. The abuses of the Italians held the city in an economic strangle hold. Nevermind the fact that the Italians would often go and kill one another causing major unrest in the city itself. If we really want to "keep score" i could always point out to how the crusades pillaged the Roman lands all through out their travels.

The abuses of the Italians? They were granted their rights by the emperor!

awesome job going to the Hitler cliche internet argument.

Like I said, I don't like it, but when it fits, it fits. Equally awesome job claiming "not to justify the massacres or anything but it was totally all their fault."

Well considering the Emperor of the Roman Empire was the Emperor of Romans. Baselion ton Romaeon and all that. They could look at the coast of Rome and see a glimpse of what once WAS.

Like I said, you rely on your Orthodoxy-inspired bias rather than the realities of the time. It made no sense to the Italian traders to be demanded to recognize the Greek as Roman Emperor when they could travel to Rome and the Romagna and hear no mention of him, and when there was a Roman Emperor directly to the north who would pay a visit from time to time... It was equally jolting when such demands started suddenly in 1180.

It would be incredibly useful if you could drop the personal religio-political infighting crap and look at attitudes during the time, like somebody who is studying history should. Is that too hard to ask?

Produced out of thin air? I dunno let's ask Charlemagne. He pretty much did JUST that and the attitude had been a growing trend since then.

Charlemagne, of course, had his reasons, and it is true he was influenced by those in his court who preferred he gallavant with people of his own "kind." But that is not a sufficient explanation.

But not before 1204. Constantinople pretty much was in a coma since 1204 and died in 1453.

And they could ultimately blame themselves. The story of Byzantium in these times isn't one of an innocent and great kingdom being taken down by backstabbers and barbarians. That isn't accurate whatsoever.

Well I like to read the books as well but the thread is about the video. I don't see why you're throwing such a hissy fit with name calling and all that. It was just a discussion on the video. If you don't want to be part of it, well don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Nobody is forcing you to post here. The least you could do is follow the rules of the thread, watch the video and then comment if you like. A bit of civility would be much appreciated.

Please, do quote where I did any name-calling. I've done little else than correct inaccuracies so far. If anybody's throwing the hissy fit, it is surely not me. It would be the one who freaks out any time somebody denies claims that the Byzantines were uber-super-great supermen, or when anybody doesn't' agree with the official Orthodox position.

Furthermore, don't lecture me on civility when your most common strategies of discussion are sarcasm and twisting words. "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out" is not a particularly civil way of speaking to someone. Less time telling others what to do and more time learning how to study and discuss information.

You were the one talking about how you were some major at some huge university concerning Byzantine history. I believed you and was fairly indifferent to it all regardless. It was only until later that it was found out that that wasn't the case that the wave of funny hit my PM box.

Go ahead and quote where I said such a thing. You won't find it, because you're lying. Nothing was "found out" about me, I am more than willing to divulge information when it is asked of me. Furthermore, I don't care what you and your little Orthodox-indoctrinated friends have to rumor about. That crap didn't bother me even when I was in high school, so please, get over it. You probably don't even know what others have said about you, but that's neither here nor there, is it?

SPQR pope says whut?

SPQR Pope said (this is history, not current affairs, see) he assumed the secular leadership of the SPQR. Seems the Orthodox fanatics are the ones who have the biggest problem with that, but it's not my concern. I'm not the one viewing history through modern-day religious propaganda.

I won't be replying to any inane response that is sure to come, because I'm thoroughly sick of your veiled and imaginary insults and inability to focus on discussion. Don't bother replying, unless you really really need to make yourself feel better.

[Monarchist]

My favorite time period of "Byzantium" is 1118-1143. I do agree that between 1204-1261 its glory was mostly sapped out of it, and between 1261-1453 the Emperors were working against an unstoppable tide. Remember that all they had left in 1450 was Constantinople... and Mystra (Μυστράς); hardly a glorious, golden jewel of Christianity. My point about Blachernae is that defeat was inevitable, but there remains the fact that the Turks gained entrance via an opened door in the northern sector. Despite all the corruption, they did their best to hold out.

I lament the fall not because I'm Greek (I'm not even close to being Greek), but because I'd have preferred all those gold, jewels, and, most importantly, ancient frescoes and mosaics remain in Christian hands. Don't stick your accusations of "latter day nationalism" on me, please. I hardly think we're in the latter days, and I believe that all periods of history are as close to this one as yesterday and last week. That's why I love history so much...

[Carpathian Wolf]

Yea same with me especially considering that I am Latin by language and descent (although I have a little bit of Greek way way way back.) So any supposed Greek nationalism (especially concerning that the Byzantine Roman Empire was multi national and one of the aspects of the video is actually to CRITICIZE Greek nationalism) the accusation doesn't hold water and only serves as an expression of outwardly turned inner frustration.

[Ardruire Iacób]

What a pile of biased crap. Too many subjective adjectives, leading to very strange places.

[Odovacar]

The papacy was not pleased by the crusaders actions, to being with. Neither with taking Zara nor taking Constantinaple.

[ivan_the_terrible]

The papacy was not pleased by the crusaders actions, to being with. Neither with taking Zara nor taking Constantinaple.

Exactly!

Innocent could do nothing but watch, even as his legate disobeyed him at Zara.

Further, Innocent was backing Otto for Holy Roman Emperor, not Philip of Swabia. And it was Philip that arranged for Alexius the Younger to meet the Crusaders, and ask for help in taking the throne. Innocent was naturally more aligned to Alexius III. So the Papacy had neither the motivation nor ability to divert the crusade.

[hellheaven1987]

Exactly!

Innocent could do nothing but watch, even as his legate disobeyed him at Zara.

Further, Innocent was backing Otto for Holy Roman Emperor, not Philip of Swabia. And it was Philip that arranged for Alexius the Younger to meet the Crusaders, and ask for help in taking the throne. Innocent was naturally more aligned to Alexius III. So the Papacy had neither the motivation nor ability to divert the crusade.

Well, he did outlaw Fourth Crusade; so technically, Fourth Crusade was not a Crusade related with Catholics or Papacy.

[Barry Ferguson]

I vaguely remeber seeing a vague reference that the soldiers of the 4th crusade didn't realise they were actually going to Byzantium, that it was cooked up by the doge.


In short:
Byzantium was always on the defensive, whether it was slavs, persians or bulgars pressing in. After the emergence of Islam and the loss of it's most valuable province, it was in serious trouble. After Manzikert and the loss of Anatolia, the Empire's death was inevitable. The Fourth Crusade sealed the deal