Hi granddad!

Khalid bin Walid salutes you

Western civilization owes you more than it knows

You are a hero to western civilization

At least you tried your hardest,

That's a good comparison.

senpai has noticed me. Huzzah

Never heard of this Edward the 3rd or any place called England but I'll take that as a complement

​@@freddiefletcher2497 have heard of that one

@@wood7206 Dunno, HOW would either of them defend vast, collapsing empire against unified, religious zealots from Arabia? How would you do it?

The Byzantine public's outrage over Heraclius' marriage lasted for a solid three decades.

Not only Habsburgs. A portuguese king married his daughter to his brother, although I don't know portuguese reaction to that.

Its his niece not daughter

@@Yassinekamp no u can't marry ur niece. Dnt u know about Mahram na mahram

"Habsburgs marry their close family and no one bats an eye" even now the Eastern Church forbids marriages to relatives until and including the fourth degree cousins ... that the children of your brother are cousins of first degree to your children, their children and those of your children will be cousins of second degree etc. .

You mean. The Aurelian of Half an Empire?

@@KraNisOG When Heraclius came to power, the empire controlled the whole Mediterranean.

@@histguy101 *Most of the Mediterranean.

@@anirudh177 When you're the only state with proper warships and a navy, and you control most of the Mediterranean coasts and all of the islands within it, it's a Roman sea.

@@histguy101 Well, that makes sense.

That’s cool Iam his competent grandson

@skeplog there is a story in Islam. Heraclius know about Islam and Muhammad but no Muslim in his kingdom. Heraclius one of the Great Rome King. The most important thing is, Heraclius poses the most precious thing that nobody ever had in the world that Heraclius himself hid it nowhere found.

@skeplog I’m a Muslim and we do admire Heraclius’s view on prophet Muhammad. He received the letter sent by prophet Mohammad and questioned the Chief of Makkah (who was in Syria at the time) about it. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qZaBfdKH2pzYoZc.html

@@wannbaik i

In a similar way, Salah Al Din is also a hero among Christians.

@MEME BOI based on your comment I’m assuming this statement is no longer just a theory for you

You're probably right. The transition to using Greek started under Justinian and then accelerated from there. I imagine that Heraclius' arrival from Africa may have temporarily reintroduced some Latin into the capital for a time. As for there ever being an official language, I have always had the impression that Latin was the official language of government business up to the time of Justinian. I was surprised to see that Heraclius got the credit for making a change, but at the same time, that would just be a common sense recognition of reality by the 7th Century. I imagine that it is a relic of older scholarship where Heraclius also gets full credit for the theme system.

+Thersites the Historian Yeah, it's very odd. I see this claim repeated all the time but it's never cited by any contemporary source or material evidence at all, it might very well be a relic of some old scholarship. The fact that Latin coins don't see a drastic drop in the east after Heraclius and continue until Justinian II pretty much disproves this on it's own. I think it may come from Heraclius' decision to change his primary title from Augustus to Basileus (although contrary to what is often stated, Augustus was still used, albeit not as often), but doing this doesn't indicate a change in the official language. More recent theories generally think he did this either to simplify his adress during times of war as he was out in the field of battle, or to create a religious conotation with the Imperial office, calling himself Basileus to invoke thoughts of David and Solomon.

I blame the Byzantine dark age. I imagine that you're right about Heraclius' use of basileus encouraging older generations of scholars to see a general linguistic shift.

Heraclius was raised in Roman Carthage so it makes sense to assume he spoke latin. I believe most of the historians credit Heraclius with introducing Greek as official language because most of latin speaking province began to fall during his reign. by the end of the Heraclian Dynasty the empire lost 2/3 of it's provinces . the core of the remaining provinces were greek speaking (Anatolia, Greece..)

+Mohamed Medhat That's not quite right though, only Syria was permanently lost during Heraclius' reign (Egypt didn't fall until shortly after his death). The lingua franca in Syria was Syriac and Greek whereas the lingua franca in Egypt was Coptic and Greek. Latin wasn't very common in either of these provinces. The only Latin majority region lost was the Western Balkans, which wasn't uniformly Latin and was a mix of multiple dialects/languages including Latin. Italy and Africa wouldn't fall until the 690's and 750's respectively. So if anything during the reign of Heraclius, the Empire lost more Greek speakers than Latin speakers territorially.

Perhaps. Although the situation was already pretty dire by the time that he took office and was critical at the time when he mounted his invasion of the Sassanian homeland. If anything, aside from war-weariness, the Empire as a whole was in the best shape going into Yarmuk than it had been in 30 or so years. It was still fragile, however, and perhaps even a prime Heraclius would not have been able to stave off the Arab invasions given the mobility of the new foe and the extreme weakness of Persia, which didn't carry its weight by inflicting losses on the Arabs.

Thersites the Historian yeah, not that he and his confidants didn’t make poor decisions during the war with the Arabs, but given that he did have serious mental health deterioration towards the end of his life, it is worth noting that at the beginning of that war, Heraclius was, by most accounts that I’ve heard, still a capable administrative and even military leader. Although the war with the Sassanids was much more sensibly funded than previous wars had been, it still was a very expensive endeavor, and given that, like you said, it also weakened the #1 buffer faction for the Byzantines from the Arabs, they weren’t at all in a good situation to be fielding the types of large armies that it would’ve taken to block the huge forces coming from the Arabian peninsula. I think a lot of factors contributed to the loss of territory to the Arabs, not least of which was poor foresight from Byzantine leaders, including Heraclius, but it seems he hadn’t descended into the point of mental incapacitation at that period. Had the battle of Yarmuk gone differently, Islam may not even still exist today. If Byzantine commanders had been more vigilant and set watched on the bridges of the river, the Muslims couldn’t have sabotaged them, and they wouldn’t have had the confidence for their charge, may have even lost the battle as the Muslim army was pretty battered at that point.

@@ThersitestheHistorian It's still a bit unfair to put the blame on him for Persias weakness. Yes he weakened persia, more by cunning than actual force, but he could hardly have predicted that the resulting civil war would be so incredible devastating for persia that it did became. And it's not like the initial dissent in persia was all his fault either, he mostly just exploited the fire that was already there, and it might have triggered a civil war anyway even if he hadn't.

Lmao y’all powerscaling emperors

I agree bro. It’s a testament that most historian lovers realise that religions are generally a political tool combined with philosophy. Power attracts corrupted people who will mislead and sacrifice countless for their own ambition. Twisting religion and nationalism have just been the most effective ways to entice the masses to support a corrupted person’s motives.

@@rockstar450 You are a weirdo.

@@OkurkaBinLadin not following? I don’t get what there is to understand that religious and political structures have been exploited by greedy ambitious men to goad the masses to reach their ends?

People today too libtard

byzantine fall out by the muslim warrior .

It's the curse of millions of Arius fellowers burned at the stick that caused the fall of christian Rome, forever.

@@nantzstein3311 wait, what? Arians were burned at the stake? I know many were exiled, then allowed to return, then exiled, etc, in the 4th-7th centuries. There was at least one person that might be considered an Arian, that was burned at the stake during the Reformation, but that was after the fall of the east. What Arians were burned at the stake during the Roman empire? I can't find any references to such an event, let alone millions.

The 4th Crusade was the real point of sharp decline. Splitting up an empire’s territory is a sure way to defang your hold and encourage all enemies to move in on you... and that’s not mentioning the capital being sacked...

@@nantzstein3311 Arianism was condemned but that didn't do much. Many of the Germanic tribes in the western empire practiced Arian Christianity, being a huge portion of the armies they certainly weren't burned at any stake. Arianism just declined after a very long time.

I am more inclined to think of it as a massive unintended consequence, but there are some people who like to really overstate things.

Same

The problems with the sources for Heraclius are that they are all from a much later date when Heraclius had already become something of a legend. As for Phocas, it is hard to say if he actually raped someone but it isn't hard to believe that Heraclius would promote any rumors to that effect.

I am planning to get there as I slowly make my way through the emperors.

I just re watched Extra Credits series on Justinian and yea ur right

It happened, a very good account is that of the triumph of Emperor Theophilos after defeating the Abbasid Caliphate in several battles. Although rather ironically was that he would end up on the losing side of the peace negotiations after some defeats.

I am an atheist here good to know for the christians never found them on youtube practically gone all I see is muslims giving him as this muslim sympathiser or even a full blown muslim in secret, as for christians they dont view him as a crusader they dont even have the byzantines in their head unless youre talking about the orthodox church which does not have that much influence left compared to the protestants and catholics. Anyways as far as im concerned Heraclius probably never received any letter and thought of the muslims well as some random arabian tribesmen which came out of nowhere, took lands I just took from the sassanids and the book some previous emperor gave me did not tell me about them

@@Cecilia-ky3uw Well to be fair there is supposed to be a contemporary byzantine source that mentions one of the first battles. The author says that the prophet Muhammad lead the army himself (this is not what Islamic sources claimed but at least some academics argue that he did) and they mention that "his son" probably a reference to Zayd ibn Haritha, who was adopted by Muhammad before Islam.

@@stevenv6463 did mohammad not abolish adoption in islam

@@Cecilia-ky3uw Yes this is why I said he adopted him before Islam. He was called Zaid ibn Muhammad but then he was known as Zaid ibn Haritha after the prophet taught people to not adopt (specifically in calling another person your child when they're not).

@@stevenv6463 thanks for clarifying

I think the muslims were kinda concerning tbh they came out of nowhere proceeded to defeat his armies while he was away and the book some emperor wrote back then or his brother or so did not talk about them

I spoke too soon. You mentioned in 31” 10’

Yes I think

@@jouskehigaskita8835 After 2 years of study in the subject - yes

I was just raising the question and trying to show that if Heraclius had failed in the end, that our memory of him would be of a vicious usurper who helped to bring down an empire. In the end, the Byzantines were better off under Heraclius than Phocas, but it looks like it took Heraclius a decade to produce any kind of results.

@@ThersitestheHistorian he was wise the quran confirms it

@@fawadahmed9370 the quran talks about Heraclius?

@@alessandronavone6731 Not by name, though it does mention some contemporary battles the of the Byzantine-Sassanid War. The Hadith mention him by name, and apparently Muhammed sent him a letter which is still extant, though obviously take all of this with a grain of salt.

@@SonofSethoitae oh that makes sense. I knew about the supposed letter and the hadith, but a Quran quote would have been quite a surprise to me.

*Heraclius* (idk why autocorrect always spells Heraclitus)

Mithras something ? Judaïsme ish but most probably, a Monotheistic christianity. Accepting Jesus as man send by God.

Not sure about that. The Arabs always had an interesting relationship with Abrahamic faiths, however. And early Islam was certainly an ethnoreligious concept, codifying lots of behaviors that were part of Arabic tribal customs, and that were also adopted by Arab Christians and Jews.

@@BrorealeK they were semites. that is pretty interesting than the the false hood of xtianity

It's fairly difficult to tell because of how identities change over time, but it does seem like the Avars may have been Turkic and certainly demonstrated some differences with the Slavs, whom they treated as subjects and subordinate allies.

The most accepted theory is that they were proto-Mongolian Rouran (Ju-juan) of Inner Asia.

Charlemagne destroyed the avars for good in 802 I think as for slavs tho no

definitely turk

Baiyan II was the khagan's name.

Catalin Soare is that why the copts revolted in the 8th century and asked the byzantines for aid? Spare me your orientalist drivel

@@tsaltos84 Millions of Cathars burned at the stick come to mind.

@@nantzstein3311 Cathars also?! I thought the Cathars were defeated in the Albigensian crusade, in southern France. What does that have to do with the Byzantine/Romans??

@@nantzstein3311 there werent "millions" of cathars at any point in history.

It wasnt real freedom of religion. Islamic society was stacked against Christians and jews with the longterm goal of gradual but total conversion of those populations to islam, hence the "jizya" and other similar things.

The Christian’s of syria and Egypt already considered themselves separate from the orthodox who viewed them as heretics by the time of Justinian. By the reign of John Tzimiskis the Roman’s treated Syria as enemy territory not occupied friendly land even with a Christian majority.

@@ChevyChase301 for one they always viewed as stolen lands which is why the Emperor made the first Crusaders to swear an oath to give back any lands they conquer back to the Empire. Given Byzantine history depends on which emperor was ruling since they even considered many of their own citizens heretics. Which led to the many Civil wars. You might love the fact that Christians lost lands to the foreign invaders (muslims) but don't revision history.

@@misaelfraga8196did he he Persians and Arabs not get help from the Coptic Christians and what did the cusaders do to the Coptic Christians in Jerusalem?

@@thegreatprogressivemind788 what did the Rashidun Caliphate did to the Coptics for centuries? Heck what did the Muslims do just in early modern period oh pnly put them in Dhimmi status. You know nothing you Marxist.

Not really, the First Crusade was a shjtshow from the first place, with the Eastern-Roman empire being raided by Crusaders who massacred Jewish civilians.

Heraclius was Armenian

@@Dersimite ik

​​@@papazataklaattiranimamYes. He was Armenian, and Armenians are known for their wisdom and intelligence....... Sinan Agha, who built Türkiye, was also Armenian.

Well considering the persians were pretty good to the jews its not surprising

they (western scholars) try to deceive and deny the truth about what is said in the Holy Qur'an and hadith of the Holy Prophet about the Roman Empire during the time of the Messenger of Allah, especially its fall in the hands of the Muslims.

"Byzantine" is a label used by modern Western scholars to denote the chronological difference between the Roman Empire (31 BCE-476 CE) and its eastern continuation (476-1453 CE). It is an artificial construct, but it is a convenient shorthand.

@@ThersitestheHistorian However, the term referring to the eastern rom is precisely based on the hadith of muhammad's prophet compared with byzantine which can mislead the people, especially non-Muslims, who do not know similarities and legacies between the two empires. especially when discussing the position of Christianity during the reign of heraclius kings and the process of developing the Islamic religion during the prophetic era of the prophet Muhammad. at the same time the name of the byzantine seems to deny the collapse of the western rom kingdom which is more synonymous with the development of church institutions and at this time the destruction of the gospels deviated by the heraclius and the Christian's own leader. nice to discuss with u.

@@NiksNeves I didn't realize that about the hadith. It is certainly an interesting distinction for an outside power to make. That being said, my general rule of thumb for giving names is to either go with the label that the given group used for itself to maximize accuracy or to go with the label that is most commonly employed in the Anglophone tradition to try to maximize recognition. The Byzantines referred to themselves most often as Hoi Romanoi (the Romans), recognizing neither a fundamental break in the Roman tradition nor a geographical realignment. However, a French scholar in the time of the Enlightenment decided to name the period after 476 after the shift in the empire's center of political gravity to Constantinople, which was built on top of the Greek city of Byzantium. Eastern Rome or Eastern Roman Empire is also a fine label since it is reasonably well-known. However, I imagine that if you see the label in English, it is derived from a modern historian rather than from someone who was aware of the hadith tradition. Good to chat with you.

@@NiksNeves Arabs first came to Byzantine lands there was no mention of a prophet of Islam called Mohammad. When looking at the coins minted from 630’s until the beginning 700’s. Muhammad was a title denoting to Jesus Christ because on the other side of the coin they had the cross. Arabs created a prophet to have a sense of identity.

Agreed. Watch his videos on modern presidents. He's a hack who dislikes strongman type of figures.

The byzantine empire never existed . Only the roman empire existed . I am from Brazil but modern Brazil has nothing in common with the Brazil of the 2 past centuries culturally speking but I still being brazillian and I see myself as brazillian . The byzantine never saw themselves as byzantines but only as romans . Culture changes in 1500 years of empire

I think it was out of practicality he needed soilders to fight the Persians also the Avars weren't the best in siege warfare so Heraclius might of thought the Persians were the real threat to the empire I think with time and had the Arabs not invaded Heraclius or his succesers might have tried and take back the Balkans but sadly the eastern Roman empire in real life ended up losing important provinces not just the Balkans but Syria and Egypt and later north Africa

I`m a native romance speaker from the balkans, in a way it was Heraclius fault that today in the balkans almost all latin speakers are gone assimilated by the slavs except romania and some vlah enclaves in macedonia, northen greece and istria, its true that heraclius removed almost all roman forces from the balkans at the same time he invited slavic tribes to settle in the area for exemple it was him that let the serbs settle in what was today`s serbia as Federati of the empire, most serbs and other slavs will tell you that there narives to the balkans but that is not true.

1) how was it his fault ? By 610 the Romans where lossing having lost 2 provinces and enconomical crisis hit the empire 2) the sassanids where the main thereat not the avars The sassanids took the important provinces of the Levant Syria Palestine and Egypt ( PS most troops actually where from Anatolia )

@@El-Silver he asked the slavs particularly what became today modern day serbs to settle into roman territory hence starting the assimilation and destruction of latinity in the balkans, i understand the situation of the empire was grim but still he wanted to suplement one frontier so he can concentrate of the middle east, if you look carefully between 260 to around 600 most of the army came from the latin speaking provinces in the balkans.

@@marcelcostache2504 well this problem happen before heracluis before even the rall of the west actually as Attila the Hun mass murdered the relgion This not true for post atilla most of justian armies where not Balkan Most of Heraclius armies where Armenian Anatolian or middle eastern

Armenian...

The only supposed evidence on which some outdated historians based the narrative that Heraklios was Armenian, is that the sources mention that Heraclios' father was from the "Armeneiakon" theme. But the actual fact is that it's not certain that he was of Armenian ancestry, since the "Armeneiakon" theme was actually not Armenia but only a large imperial province bordering Armenian lands inhabited by both Greeks and Armenians. The sources never actually referred to either him or his father as Armenian! Heraklios might have been, of Armenian ancestry from his father's side, but there is insufficient evidence to prove this. Also according to the sources it's clear that his mother was Greek Cappadocian. From Mavrikios onwards all emperors were either Greek, either half-Greek or at the very least totally Hellenized, otherwise they simply wouldn't be accepted as the rulers. By the end of late antiquity, in order to be accepted as a "Basileus Romaion" one had to 1) speak fluent Greek, 2) have Greco-roman cultural values and 3) be a Chalcedonian Christian. These three components together, made someone a true Romaios. The "Byzantine" emperors are some of the most documented individuals in history, yet about none (Heraklios included) there is any sort of evidence that they spoke any Armenian at all, or spoke Greek with an Armenian accent ,or even simply followed any Armenian customs. Nina Garsoïan a French-born historian of Armenian ancestry specializing in Armenian and Byzantine history. wrote that: “the degree to which they were still to be considered ‘Armenian’ is open to question” precisely because of assimilation, which, she is typically calling “Greek”. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, also denied that "there is any point to labeling these people Armenians when their families had been in the empire for generations and had adopted an entirely “Greco-Roman” profile."

Read Tom Hollands Shadow of the Sword. He specifies Armenian decent. Also Armeneikon is technically in the lesser Armenia region as well, Western Armenia. This is why I said most likely. @@highevan

​​@@highevanHeraclius was an Armenian from an Armenian family, even in Arab history his origin is Armenian....

​​@@dopp7724Heraclius was an Armenian from an Armenian family, even in Arab history his origin is Armenian....

Many were Abrahamic, and not beleiving in invented trinity

@@islamaroc They were Christians who believed in Trinity that existed 650 years after the Prophet of Islam came into the scene.

No we were pagons dont talk on behalf of us

Bedouin Arabs were mostly pagans

@@khalednajada2514 الجاهلية هي هلق!

Rightfully so. Jews massacred christians with the Persians years earlier and betrayed rome

They were weak tho no competent commander 26 years of war what do u expect arabia at that time had competent commander until first arab civil war 655 I think

Go up against the romans before the year 200 and see what happens to you. The arabs took good advantage of their opponents being weak, but you can't say that they were somehow transcendently great soldiers who easily defeated two massive empires. It would be like some guy jumping into a boxing ring after the two fighters had gone 12 brutal rounds and knocking them both out. Then claiming the title for himself.

Khalid was 5 stars general too op Also he nearly killed Muhammad prophet in battel of ohod Also to defeat him u need to be either too flanky in the battle and savy like balicaris general or too cautious like like narses and u can't make mistakes im battle of yarmek he was very cautious for 3 days he nearly lost then in 4th day he made good comeback

​​@@rickyyacine4818😂😂😂?😂?

No, Heraclius wasn't a secret Muslim. That is islamic cope!

i think heraclius would unfortunately be assassinated

@@valtontony826 I guess

​​​@@hashimbokhamseen7877 it would be a little awkward since his legitimacy was generally based on being a protector of Christianity

Because it never happened cause if it did the event would be recorded by the scribes of Byzantium

no it did not happen it was just a bunch of muslim fanfiction

@@Cecilia-ky3uw hhhhh...we know even what was written word by word and who was the companion who took the letter. Do you think we muslims are like you lying on Jesus ans Moses ? All Prohete life and narrations is documented and subject ti scientific and academic evaluation

@@islamaroc and indeed science proves a lot of its claims false like the sun and the mud or the sun can be commanded by god and so far science has not objectively proven god

@@islamaroc as for Jesus and Moses Jesus existed Moses as far as we know did not exist and the best source for jesus are the romans mixed with some christian accounts

The problem with Heraclius' numbers is that a lot of the men in the ranks would be new recruits, since most of the frontier armies had been wiped out and had to be rebuilt with only a small nucleus of Heraclius' veterans. Their quality would not be all that high on average in all likelihood. As to the "advanced weaponry", I'm not sure that any of the three forces had a clear edge in that regard. The Arabs had had lots of exposure to Byzantine and Persian weaponry for centuries at this point and they must have been on par or close to on par if they were attractive options to hire for mercenary service.

The Arabs had a civil war before conquering the Byzantine and Sasanian Empires and the Muslim sources said that the Rashidun Caliphate faced a 40.000 Arab soldier in battle of yamama so the Rashidun were also exhausted .

this is way a refuse to talk to arabs always wanting to look superior then everybody, the roman armies around the time of the muslim invasion there exhausted and the army at yamouk was made up of armenians, christian arabs, ect if you read the sources there where almost no real elite imperial trupes, the empire was exhausted, if the arabs whoud of attacked some 25 years later the empire might had enough time to rebuild its military but no, same for the ssasanid persians.

@@marcelcostache2504 There was also a lot of greeks in the christian army.

@@user-dl5ln3wd6f im not saying there where not im saying that the army was not to Roman standards it was made up fast so fight the invades, the empire was in a bad state after the sassanid war in the middle east, the balkans where in a terrible state do to the avar/slavic invasion, italy was overun by the germanic lombards, spain was lost the only stable place in the empire was north africa(carthage)

Well said. I've seen this a lot and even normies (who are more leftist than ever before due to the overton window shift) parrot this. To be frank, he is atleast somewhat watchable compared to someone like historia civilis who can't help himself but inject his own marxist slave-morality into his videos. He even insults historical characters with leftist epithets. This is what low testosterone and intellectually vapid social sciences in university does to a mf!

I think that I had a stroke reading this

Your comment is satire right? Can you explain what paradigm is being revised here? You don’t even understand what revisionist is, do you?

You should check SpeakersCorner !

@@nantzstein3311 Interesting to find someone for whom this question is still alive.

When did Muhammad invade Rome? In your dream, return to your desert, O Bedouin...

A lot of bullshit in one message, congratulations