A lot of that had to do with the very chaos that perpetuated the cycle. Ironically it was their strength because it allowed the strong to dominate the weak and encouraged ruthless meritocracy.

It was administration and a grand network of diplomats and spies. This is well documented. Even with military defeat the government was still functional.

It really lived up to its name Nova Roma. The sister city that stood a thousand years. Also it tickles me that as the Romans became more Greek, the more they fought themselves like true men of the Balkans.

It's more fascinating that the Romans were very materialistic empire, they had no chance with the arab Muslims who fought for belief and doctrine, and for the first time in history they got kicked from the middle east and africa for ever.

@@geordiejones5618 Romans where orignally Greek, Trojans.

Deep-down, there are a few significant reasons for that historical omission in the West: The Great Schism (religious), and the subsequent greatest treachery in European history in the form of the 4th Crusade (1204). In other words, guilt has triggered a sense of denial, preventing the recognition of the Eastern Roman Empire for what it truly was: the direct continuation of the Roman Empire (as opposed to the HRE), and the greatest protector of Christianity in the history of the world.

@@martinusv7433 That is all wrong on multiple levels. The great schism and the 4th crusade were well within the middle ages, and they were taught in schools, so your theory doesn't make sense at all. It seems that you misunderstood the post or didn't care and were just looking for a chance to spout your propaganda. Even if it were true that the ERC was the continuation of the RE, that is nothing to be proud of anyway. And the greatest protector of Christianity? It sounds like the crusader is you.

@@OAlem It seems that there really was one person who misunderstood a post...but that definitely wasn't me. I thought that it was clear enough that I listed 2 REASONS for that omission, NOT 2 events that have been omitted. Those 2 reasons are the main CAUSES why the Western (Catholic) educational system attempts to water down the fact that Byzantium blatanty WAS the most prominent protector of Christianity for hundreds upon hundreds of years (because how exactly could anyone pretend to be a Christian while they're on record for brutally sacking and destroying that protective empire). And what on earth do you mean by "even if it were true"?? There was one Rome, which got divided into 2 parts: the East and the West. The fact that the Western part got annihilated DIDN'T stop the Eastern part from being Rome, for goodness sake! Just like when North Korea happens to get annihilated it obviously doesn't stop South Korea from still being Korea. It shouldn't be really that hard to understand. And make no mistake, if you happen to be anywhere from Europe, North / South America, or Australia, then you'd most likely be praying towards Mecca 5 times a day WITHOUT the Byzantine defensive efforts and grit. The Battle of Poitiers (732) was just a historical footnote compared to the significance of the failed Arab sieges of Constantinople (674-678 & 717-718). Btw, I'm NOT an Orthodox Christian myself and I've got even less ethnic connections with Greece or Greeks - so it's all about giving credit where credit is obviously due.

@@martinusv7433 I'd imagine the real reason why this is rarely talked about is because of the waning influence of the Roman Empire and the rise of recorded history in Northern Europe. By the 600s the Byzantine empire is no longer powerful enough to directly influence France or Germany and as a result it is overshadowed by the rise of Charlemagne. In the North the Vendel Era is slowly evolving into the Viking Age and on the British Isles the Heptarchy is taking shape. In the West this period is already occupied with local history, there is little place for the Rise of Islam. For a Frenchman the 1st siege of Constantinople is a footnote in history whilst the Battle of Poitiers is a significant event. In the same way Athanasios Diakos is a national hero in Greece but completely unknown in the rest of Europe. It's hardly a religious conspiracy which aims to cover up the rule of Heraclius, it's simply so that the education system has a tendency to favor local events over ones which happened far away.

@@martinusv7433 Yep, crusader confirmed.

Heraclius was the 1st Napoleon (A great man who had the misfortune to live long enough to see his life’s work undone)

Press F to pay respects to Heraclius.

the war wasn't missive as Imagined. Hercules Attacked upper Mesopotamia. the whole war took 5 bettles. Syria and egypt were returned peacefully with no war.

@@starcapture3040 🙄

@@velstadtvonausterlitz2338 Oh so I must exaggerate it so you can imagine it in certain way?

Thats the problem with being the crossroads of the western world, you tend to get alot of traffic🙃

Mongols invaded east rome? Dam never heard of that

​@@theuniverse5173 It was way later during the middle ages and long after the "ancient era". The Eastern Roman Empire had split into several different states by the 1200s. The Mongols defeated some of these Eastern Roman states in battle, which caused some states to surrender and other states to seek alliances/good relations with the Mongols. At the Battle of Kose Dag, the Mongols defeated troops from the Latin Empire and the Empire of Trebizond. This caused the Empire of Trebizond to surrender to the Mongols and the Latin Empire to seek a peace & alliance treaty.

​ @TheUniverse It was way later during the middle ages and long after the "ancient era". The Eastern Roman Empire had split into several different states by the 1200s. The Mongols defeated some of these Eastern Roman states in battle, which caused some states to surrender and other states to seek alliances/good relations with the Mongols. At the Battle of Kose Dag, the Mongols defeated troops from the Latin Empire and the Empire of Trebizond. This caused the Empire of Trebizond to surrender to the Mongols and the Latin Empire to seek a peace & alliance treaty.

@@theuniverse5173 That's why we usually say they've invaded the Byzantine Empire

All I care about is whether a video puts me to sleep. A droning male voice is always best for that purpose. This video is too short for my playlist thought. I prefer at least 40 minutes, or it would not work. Accuracy or not means nothing.

@@anonymike8280 that’s sad

@@MiguelTyson If you had trouble sleeping, you would think different. What I actually do is make and save playlists. They go on all night, and when I wake up in the middle of the night, which I always do, there's something to listen to. It's replaced leaving the radio on all night. Back in the radio days, I often was awake for the 5 a.m. farm show. I learned a lot about cows. It's amazing sometime what people will say and admit to when they're in front of a friendly audience. There are cow secrets. Just that I've forgotten most of them.

So true. Pop-history UKposts channels often scare me.

@@anonymike8280 haha same!!!

So are the Romans but they have been forced to forget their Romanness by Western powers and embrace their ancient Hellenic identity which they really had nothing to do with by the time of the Greek war of Independence. Modern Greeks are direct descendants and continuation of the Byzantine Romans- aka the Greco-Romans of the East. Not the old Achaeans and Classical Greeks. A very simple way to verify this fact is their longing to gain back their old capital- Constantinople aka Istanbul.

@@zippyparakeet1074 tf are you talking about? Nobody forced anyone to forget their Romanness. When did western powers do that? Italians are proud of their roman history, and greeks are too. Greeks just like the whole cool greek stuff more than the stuff the romans brought. Most nations are more fond of the stuff "their" people did than what foreigners forced upon them through military invasion in the past.

@@zippyparakeet1074 Romans ripped off most of their culture from classical Greece. And do tell where all these Grecco-Romans came from. They didn't sail in from Italy and replace the native population, if that's what you're getting at.

Idk what these other comments are talking about 😂😂😂😂 I'm Armenian and our history and culture is very important to us, every time I hear the name of my motherland in one of these videos about the times of the Great Roman Empire, makes me very proud. Though also very sad that the world keeps ignoring the things that are happening to us

​@@goatwarrior3570Romans didn't rip anyone off, they had their own native traditions as do all peoples and cultural exchange due to trade did the rest. Chill out.

you expressed that very well, good comment

The last one was more of a greek persian rivalry. byzantines were greeks That rivalry was historically greco persian well back into antiquity

@@selfiekroos1777 i agree with you, but just because our ancestors had a rivalry with them that doesn't mean the romans didn't, i would honestly say that the roman identity was so compatible with the greek one, that some of our enemies became theirs also.

@Ejoji The Romans operated differently from the Greeks. Greeks were into trading and city state-hood. Greeks argued on points for days at a time in order to find the true meaning of something. The Romans operated more like Persians... Empire building, domination and debate to get to a point to make a decision not to think and theorize too much. Though the Greek culture influenced the Romans early on, the mindset of the empires east and west of the Hellenic world had more relatable function. Greece was a heavy culture and commerce based fragmented society, while Rome and Persia were empires who sht first and asked questions later. Minus Alexander's dynasty which really was only created as a defensive accident and the eventual Byzantines (who were not so much an empire , but an attempt at preserving what Christianity hadn't destroyed) the Greeks were a far more distinct and thoughtful society than either of their neighbors. Plus, the Romans hated facial hair while the Greeks loved it lol

@@selfiekroos1777 except with mustaches, Spartans HATED mustaches

The sources say the Persian War drained him physically, spiritually, and emotionally. For about the five years between his invasion of Mesopotamia and the battle of Nineveh he had to carry the knowledge that if he made a mistake and his army was destroyed, Roman civilisation would follow. Add to that he had to leave his wife and children in Constantinople during the siege. It’s no real wonder then that he had to leave the defence of Syria to subordinates when the Arabs invaded. It didn’t help that when he died in 641 his family squabbled over power. One son died of TB whilst Heraclius’ hated second wife and her son were overthrown by a power hungry general. That general crowned Heraclius’ grandson, an 11 year old boy, Emperor, at a time when they needed a fully grown martial emperor.

@@generalcaesar3477 Unfortunate.

I would actually argue that the ancient world officially died somewhat before this war, with the sacking of Rome itself, and the ending of the Western Roman Empire, leaving only Byzantium. At that moment, virtually all of the remnants of human history "Before Christianity" (or BC) were officially gone. Persia and Constantinople remained. But Imperial Egypt, Greece, Rome, Carthage, the Hebrew Kingdoms of Israel, and many other civilizational earmarks of the ancient world, in and around Europe and the Middle East/Africa, were officially gone by that point.

@@jacob4920 The Ancient World ended with the birth and spread of Islam. That was the most destructive watershed moment in history (and its ripple effects have continued 'til this day and age).

@@jacob4920 What of China?

Adds*

this is totally fake history like I'm watching afrocentric videos ,ghassanids and Christian Arabs in levant who carried ALL byzantine's wars and Romans's before them in the region against persians ,they were not the romans who faught sassanids it was their classical rival the ghassanids who ruled the fertile crescent for 450 continues years fake history no one byzantine chariot passed these desert between Syria and iraqi then between Iraq and Iran , romans were in europe fighting their last wars with the slavs ,goths and bulgarians who were attacking Rome borders from every where they will never call up all their power to fight in unknown arabian deserts when they were taking their last breath

Mike Duncan is the best. His history of Rome podcast was great.

I would also recommend Robin Pierson and his "History of Byzantium"

@@doublem1975x I am almost done with my 13th time through The History of Rome. It's that good, and Mike's subtle humor is well appreciated.

@@user-zs6xw3nr1t Very good podcast too but I found Robin gets a little too bogged down by minutiae and the pacing gets dragged out. Duncan is the best ever at conveying information in a concise and entertaining manner. He did another great series called “Revolutions”after he finished THOR.

Mike Duncan stands out above the rest because of the dryly sarcastic humor he sprinkles into his episodes.

Man, he should have just drank bad wine

Epilogue: Rising scholarship suggests that the "trauma" of those wars birthed Islam among the Christian/Pagan/Jewish Arab mercenary tribes. Heraclius created/used the concept of "Holy War" among soldiers and mercenaries, which planted a seed.

history is built on seemingly insignificant petty things that add up and end up having drastic consequences.

A possible strengthening of Italy and southern Hispania? Fuck Ph*cas

Like the big lebowski

fake history ,ghassanids and Christian Arabs in levant who carried ALL byzantine's wars and Romans before them in the region against persians ,they were not romans who faught sassanids it was their classical rival the ghassanids who ruled the fertile crescent for 450 continues years fake history no one byzantine chariot passed these desert between Syria and iraqi then between Iraq and Iran , romans were in europe fighting their last wars slavs ,goths and bulgarians who were attacking Rome borders from every where they will never call up all their power to fight in arabia and deserts when they were taking their last breath

hohoho Maurice was persia's bitch at that time byzantium was done deal witnessing their last breath by civil wars and the slavs and goths attacking everywhere actually the persian king parviz came to take over cause phocas was getting the borders back,it wasn't phocas

This is the sort of history that once used to be the norm: an entertaining and educational story of how things happened. It's very much old school (and it's cool).

@@weed...5692 The old school version didn't care as much about truth tho

Vivec

it's totally fake history like afrocentric history ,ghassanids and Christian Arabs in levant who carried ALL byzantine's wars and Romans's before them in the region against persians ,they were not the romans who faught sassanids it was their classical rival the ghassanids who ruled the fertile crescent for 450 continues years fake history no one byzantine chariot passed these desert between Syria and iraqi then between Iraq and Iran , romans were in europe fighting their last wars with the slavs ,goths and bulgarians who were attacking Rome borders from every where they will never call up all their power to fight in unknown arabian deserts when they were taking their last breath

you got it!

Rome fell in 476AD. Byzantium (renamed New Rome ,Constantinople) fell in 1453AD. Romans mean citizens of various ethnicities with Roman citizenship , free citizens. Rome a Greek word Ρώμη mean strength.

@@Evagelopoulos862 cope.seethe.dilate

@@SovietBear91 Take it easy ,baby 🙂

Exactly. I would also argue that even Western Rome didn't really fall in 476, Odoacer's and later the Ostrogothic kingdom were more of a new managent rather than a new thing (all the institutions, culture and customs of old Rome remained). What finished it off, the Western equivalent of this war, was the Gothic War and its apocalyptic carnage, and the subsequent Lombard invasion. Ironically, Justinian did more to destroy Rome than the barbarians themselves.

This one will be worse.

@@Peppersfirst But the wind will certainly be blowing through the grass.

Socialism eventually kills what it infects.

this is totally fake history ,ghassanids and Christian Arabs in levant who carried ALL byzantine's wars and Romans's before them in the region against persians ,they were not the romans who faught sassanids it was their classical rival the ghassanids who ruled the fertile crescent for 450 continues years fake history no one byzantine chariot passed these desert between Syria and iraqi then between Iraq and Iran , romans were in europe fighting their last wars with the slavs ,goths and bulgarians who were attacking Rome borders from every where they will never call up all their power to fight in unknown arabian deserts when they were taking their last breath

@@messianic_scam Learn how to write in complete sentences, please.

It’s a curse of human nature.

@@cjclark2002 Ain’t that the truth!

Well if you look at it These early Muslims done something only can be seen in phantasy movies. a minority fighting on 4 fronts defeating everybody in their way later creating a very high culture in one century eventually their legacy would completely destroy Rome. it is not easy to avoid being stunned by it. Just look at Kings and Generals channel its highest Watched videos are about that conquest

@@starcapture3040 Impressive, indeed. However, not unheard of. The world happened-upon by the Arabs in the seventh century was once fractured by war and plague. Alexander took on a unified Persian empire with 30,000 men at most, and the Mongol Empire--although short-lived--was larger in scope and faster in conquest. The Arab conquest of the Mediterranean was still a fantastic feat, but one that had been done before, and since.

​@@tomsuiteriii9742 It is totally unheard of! a 40 year old dude out of sudden started preaching a religion claims to Finnish all of god messages sent to mankind through out of history in none other than mecca the center of Arabic Pagan worship in a barbaric region so desolate and harsh for living with few population living in scattered villages. for 25 years living in constant danger of extinction by Pagan Arabs known for their rigid mentality oppressing them then to ultimately win creating a republic after the prophet death defeating super powers while creating their own super power to this day still the fourth largest empire in world history. the mongols have never had any such story they just conquered and destroyed eventually being defeated by the Muslims too lol and their empire fell so fast with not leaving any new creative culture to flourish. we today use the algorithm thanks to that high culture these early Muslims have created. it is so sad how downhill they are now. Muslims lived in the seventh century not in the 12 century much farther in time when technology advanced especially in militarism not leaving the fact the mongols used barbaric methods to conquer. these early msuilms weren't big collection of tribes living beside rivers and plains like the mongols. their region is absolutely harsh except for yemen. Alexander conquered already established one empire that declined massively from within that its whole strength lies on big armies. The sassined and roman empires were long standing advanced military empires and once alexander died his empire died with him and once he reached india he was defeated although many don't like to claim that while Muslims defeated every force they encountered and left a ever lasting legacy.

@@starcapture3040 Why is your reply hidden? That's strange. Anyway, I'm aware of these typical talking points of Muslim apologists, so I will briefly answer your objections: Number one, yes, Islam _claims_ to finish all human religions. The only problem is that anyone can claim to do this. In a biblical sense, the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ closed the book on God's message to humanity. Everything he does going forward is via his Son. This is what someone referred to as an absolute attempting to overrule an absolute. At any point in time another "Muhammad" can come along, proclaim the previous religion to be corrupt, and start fresh. Number two, I've heard the argument that Islam somehow "defeated" the Mongols, which, to me, is bizarre. In a sense, you're correct: the Mongol conquest of Eurasia laid waste to civilizations and killed millions in the process. However, the bulk of its wrath was unleashed on the Muslim world, including Baghdad. In fact, the end of the "Islamic Golden Age" coincides with the Mongol conquest of the Abbasid Caliphate. Therefore, if Islam defeated the Mongols, it was the most pyrrhic victory ever. Finally, Alexander did not rely on big armies. It was exactly the opposite. And if you want to measure truth by military conquest, you must account for the losses dealt to Muslim armies, as well as the victories. From Charles Martel to Constantinople to Lepanto to the Six-Day War in 1967, the Arab and Islamic world have faced serious military defeats. By the logic of God being solely on the side of truth, Muslims should have never lost a single battle in history.

@@tomsuiteriii9742 The main difference between those examples and the arab conquest, and by far their greatest achievement, was how lasting and thoroughly transformative they were. Alexander and the Mongols may have created larger empires, but the arabs succeeded in creating an entire civilisation, one that still stands today.

Watching people die is amazing?

@@ZeelofTheMarty any problem?

totally fake history ,ghassanids and Christian Arabs in levant who carried ALL byzantine's wars and Romans's before them in the region against persians ,they were not the romans who faught sassanids it was their classical rival the ghassanids who ruled the fertile crescent for 450 continues years fake history no one byzantine chariot passed these desert between Syria and iraqi then between Iraq and Iran , romans were in europe fighting their last wars with the slavs ,goths and bulgarians who were attacking Rome borders from every where they will never call up all their power to fight in unknown arabian deserts when they were taking their last breath

@@messianic_scam What source talks about that?

Glad to hear it! I have a sequel to "Naked Statues" coming out next September, and plans for more books after that.

@@toldinstone Just wanted to say I also bought the book and gotta read it this summer! My brother is an modern archeologist (Roman era) and did work on the Ostia temple and helped dig out the forum there while writing about the temple there. He will read the book after me, he really likes your videos too.

@@toldinstone Clothed Statues, Slim Gladiatrices, and Incendiary Pigs

@@d0tdash - "Clothed Statues, Virgin Martyrs and Incendiary Heretics" may be more like it. Don't you think?

@@d0tdash lol

@Twitter Is Cancer “infested”. If anything Greeks civilized the otherwise unsophisticated romans. Greek and Hebrew are still spoken today as mother tongues. Latin lmaoooo !!!!!

The history of Christianity in the Persian world is indeed a very ancient and goes all the way back to the early days of the Church. Considering how Armenia was the first kingdom to convert, it only makes sense that some of that "seeped into the empire". In tandem, as Christianity spread, one must not forget that both the regions of modern day Iraq and places such as Yemen (which had extensive contacts with the Persians) were either mostly Christian or a majority-minority religion. So it stands, why didn't the whole Persian world convert. The long story short is geopolitics. While the Persians originally did tolerate the religion, as Christianity became the de facto religion of the Romans, it came to be associated with the enemy of the west (the Romans). It also didn't help that the Eastern Roman Emperors (post Theodosius) increasingly saw themselves as the the protectors of the christian world (ecumene-οικουμένη) which gave them a great excuse to interfere in Persian affairs. In tandem, Zoroastrianism was the official religion of the state and the Shah, so Christianity could pose a direct challenge to the king of kings. Hence why when this war began, so many Churches were put to the torch. The great irony (or if you wish to dabble in the "what if"), is that even before the war, Christianity was on the rise in what we call modern-day Iran (albeit it Nestorianism and not the "correct" type of Christianity by Roman standards). By the end of the war, even a significant amount of the upper Sassanian had converted to the religion including members of the royal family. So it seemed that it was only a matter of time before Christianity established itself as the new religion. But as we all know, the Islamic conquests put an end to that trajectory.

He thought he was getting his wife the best present every, and he fought a war to get it for her.

Christianity was extremely widespread in Persia, Even from the beginning of Christianity. The treatment of christianity widely varied depending on the Shah's whims. Some had positive relations with the church of the east, others had negative relations. For the most part however, the specific church of the east enjoyed some degree of favour from the Sassanid empire. Unfortunately the rise of Islam virtually exterminated eastern christianity and various other religions of the time. Note how i said the church of the east. The Roman backed church was not the dominant form of christianity in Persia.

@@thedon9247 Yeah, and many a man done a terrible thing just to get his baby a shiny diamond ring.

All that before the DUP.

Both empires still out numbered the Arabs out experienced in every battle. Better equipment and economy. I get what your saying if the Arabs fought just one but it though both at the same time. Battle of Yarmouth and qadessia where few months between in which both imperial armies where broken

It just needed another set of the "five good emperors" to help it survive through the Islamic onslaught and I can bet you that it'd have survived in some capacity to this very day.

Its civil wars pretty much was the reason why it lasted so long. The hostile environment bred only the strongest and hardiest of men to lead Rome

@@genghiskhan5701 which led to more civil wars. No sense of legitimacy or birthright was established.

@@zippyparakeet1074Maybe. I think they couldn't have stopped Atilla and everyone else the Huns drove into roman Empire. It was just too much.

@@genghiskhan5701 LOL. It's not some football derby. These civil wars killed off tens of thousands soldiers, used up funds and other resources needed to protect the empire's borders. And the men who lead Rome did not fight in the front lines eather.

Sorry about the heads. I've got a feeling, a feeling I can't hide. Oh, no. Just kind of get wrapped up in the moments and have to follow through.

Just one point, or adventure, of fiction was really left to be desired in this story. I would love to hear about the hero who confronted and destroyed the Muslim army and personally executed Muhammad. Actually, it's too bad that story would be a fiction. It would have saved the world. Literally.

It makes me sad how there's so much money invested into fantasy series like game of thrones or the witcher and many other movies instead of real historical ones like these or the wars of the successors of Alexander the great It would be 100 times better and real fact 😥

@@lukasmakarios4998 wow, did you really just wish that the progenitor of a faith over One Billion strong never existed?

@@game_boyd1644 - Yes. It's a false religion promoted by violent conquest.

Moral relativism is the refuge of pseudo intellectuals