Yes

@@historyoftheromans2527 much better antoninius Pius

@@babitayadav4806 Domitian

Anastasius was like a first anastasius

@@koboldgeorge2140 well that's boring

Actually domitian was unpopular among the Senate, as he hated them. He was very liked by the people.

@@aromanlegionnair5096 And he also had the loyalty of the Army & Praetorian Guard

Beeebz he probably just used the map because it showed the city where Anastasius was born. But you’re right there should have been a note indicating the borders didn’t reflect the time period.

Zeno > Anastasius.

napoleons anastativs > Zeno

@@theoldcavalier7451 He was luckier. But he appears to have been a bit of a dick about religion.

I wonder if he was reincarnated as that Venetian miller who would bore his neighbours about The Cheese and The Worms.

Like everything in (especially) older history it is impossible to be one hundred percent sure about anything written down to us Edit: Just saw this was 2 years ago, sorry about this! I’ll let my comment stay if somebody else comes across it. Cheers!

@@casualyoutubeviewer9198 in fairness, the freedom we have to speculate about past events is part of what's so much fun about ancient history

I don't know. I have never bought ancient coins on the coin market, so I don't really know how much any of them are worth.

Depending on the condition you can pickup one of his gold Solidus for between $600 to $1800

The current version of the building, yes. There was a church there beforehand also and it was destroyed during the Nika riots.

There had been a couple of churches on the site. The previous Hagia Sophia was destroyed in the Nika riots.

Wasn't the first Hagia Sophia built by constantius II?

@@ThersitestheHistorian Thanks for your information

@@derrickfowler7685 Yes, current scholarship affirms that the first 'Great Church' (as it seems to have been originally known) was consecrated in 360 during the reign of Constantius II.

Yeah, it was destroyed in 532.

The hagia sophia we know was built on top of an older, smaller church, also called hagia sophia.

I assume you're referring to the map seen at 7:57. That differently shaded area is there simply to highlight the region of Isauria, from whence the Isaurian faction originated. The region was indeed still part of the eastern Roman empire at that time.

@@barrymoore4470 I mean the one at 1:39 .

@@theodorsebastian4272 I see, thank you for that clarification. Users 'Beeebz' and 'Sssrx' elsewhere in these comments discuss the very same point, observing how that map misrepresents the frontiers of the empire during Anastasius' lifetime. 'Sssrx' speculates that the map was there to show the future ruler's native city of Dyrrachium, adding that there should have been some kind of notation clarifying that the borders seen here were not contemporary with Anastasius himself.

It was technically one church, but the political and cultural separation of the East and West meant that they didn't always function that way. There was also a pervasive trend for the Pope to assert his claim to supremacy at any and all opportunities and that tendency manifested itself many times.

1) Diplomatic answer. No matter the trends there was one holy catholic and apostolic church with 5 patriarchates which now unfortunately doesn't exist. But we pray so that churches unite again. Even though it is nice to watch it. I didn't know so many details. 2) a) There is another trend while watching history documentaries nowadays. They say for example the serbian kingdom included Bosnia, Montenegro and Serbia which is wrong. The people in 14th didn't think like today's countries. They say ''we are serbian (or probably roman) orthodox''. The rest are fictitious history in order to give legitimacy to states/nations that never existed independently, like now ''Macedonia'' or ''Albania'' or ''Bosnia''. b) And we use the word ''byzantium'' which is created by a german scholar in ~1560 after the fall of Constantinople. The people were calling themselves romans, not greeks or serbians, or armenians or georgians. Gradually after 800 the empire was greek since the language used was greek rather than latin. So, the nations based on language differences appeared... 3) The Turks e.g. say ''the people that lived in Anatolia since Troyan war or before are our ancestors .'' Everyone can say whatever he likes. It is free. So, countries take history from other countries in order to have rights on the land they now possess. In the same way US citizens may claim Indian roots and history. Mexicans may claim the Aztec/Mayan history etc... ''Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.'' Eccl. 1, 2

@@lolwutyoumad speak better my child...

@@ergoteleios Dude no offense, but you're inserting your own EO ecclesiology into what you think the Church of this era was. During his reign was the Acacian schism, wherein the Pope found all other Patriarchs to be schismatic (although during part of the schism there was a recognition of Chalcedon by the Emperor). The maker of this video stated in reply to you that the Popes during this time period tended to assert their supremacy, and he's entirely correct in doing so. Pope St Gelasius I comes to mind, who asserts papal supremacy in no less than three of his epistles. Before him, we find Pope St Boniface I and even the Great Leo doing such. After Gelasius, we find Pope St Hormisdas healing the Acacian schism in the 6th century by having the schismatics sign the Formula of Hormisdas, which asserts a certain type of papal infallibility (more specifically, the indefectability of the Roman See). Just an fyi, the Patriarch of Constantinople, along with over 200 bishops and 3500 clergy signed it. Whenever EOs like to flaunt the whole "4 Patriarchs vs 1" thing about the 1054 schism, they don't realize that in Church history this very schism, the Acacian schism, experienced just that, with the Pope being in the right.

@@dioscoros In gospel it is said that the results of an action will show you about the person or condition. So, in 2019 Pope has a state and Vatican Bank. This suprimacy is misunderstood and lead to crusades etc. Eastern orthodox still wait Pope to get his position as 1st among equals patriarchs. That is why Pope of Rome is not appointed 1000 years now by Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.