6 ms·

> filling the vacuum caused by the collapse of the Roman empire What about the "other" Roman empire, the Byzantines? They seemed to have filled the vacuum even

by ng12 8y ago

> filling the vacuum caused by the collapse of the Roman empire What about the "other" Roman empire, the Byzantines? They seemed to have filled the vacuum even better.

basilgohar 8y ago
There's a reason "Byzantine" when used as an adjective also has the negative connotation of "Overly complex or intricate." [1] It was not really a good successor in terms of success for the Roman Empire. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Byzantine#Adjective https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Byzantine#Adjective
- ng12 8y ago
  > It was not really a good successor in terms of success for the Roman Empire. How so? Constantinople was the richest, most recognized city on the European continent from the fall of Rome to the Fourth Crusade -- over half a millenium. At it's zenith it ruled almost as much territory as the Roman Empire. There's a reason the Islamic caliphs coveted it so much. Remember that there was a lot of distrust between the Latin and Greek worlds after the Great Schism. The whole reason we're calling them Byzantines instead of Romans (or even Greek/Eastern Romans) is because Renaissance scholars wanted to emphasize Latin Romans over (the still existing) Greek Romans.
cat199 8y ago
Sorry, this is history from a western/anglo-centric perspective. The eastern empire simply doesn't exist after 1054.
- beat 8y ago
  The eastern empire lost most of its territory by 800, reducing it to a dying regional power. But yeah, totally a European perspective. Aside from the Romans, "Europe" barely comes into play in history, until Spain reached America and started bringing back enormous piles of gold.
  - ng12 8y ago
    The Byzantines controlled all of Anatolia, the Balkans, and parts of Italy around 1000 and retained much of it through the Komnenian Restoration. I wouldn't call the empire "dying" until after 1204. And remember, even at it's lowest Constantinople itself was regarded extremely highly -- most famously the Rus adopted Eastern Orthodoxy after being so impressed by the city.
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  You can go to any Orthodox church and see the liturgy celebrated as it was in the times of Emperor Basil Bulgar-Slayer. Constantinople survives.
pishpash 8y ago
Exactly. It's not like the Byzantines didn't keep the writings of the Greeks. They were the Greeks. Greece still owns islands right off of Turkey, being from the very start a circum-Aegean state.
billfruit 8y ago
It does seem amazing to me that on one occasion, the Eastern Empire even occupied Rome itself for a few brief years during/after tge Gothic wars.
beat 8y ago
The Byzantines were an eastern empire, not a western one - more aligned with the Orient than with Europe. That said, pretty much the moment Islam appeared, they ripped Egypt and the Levant out of Byzantine hands - reducing the "Byzantine empire" from "empire" to "regional kingdom that will eventually get sacked". Less than a century after Islam started, they were laying siege to Constantinople. Over the next couple of centuries, Constantinople lost 90% of its population. Basically, they only lasted meaningfully for a few centuries, between the fall of the western empire and the rise of the Islamic empire. If you count the transition from the original Islamic conquest to the Ottoman empire as a single continuous system (as you're doing with the western Roman empire and the Byzantine empire), then the Islamic empire lasted for north of 13 centuries, finally dying only in the 20th century, the end of WWI.
- evol262 8y ago
  The Byzantines were as aligned with the "Orient" as Alexander was. They held onto territory in Italy until a full 600 years after the West fell (once Belisarius recaptured it in the 600s). They had active diplomacy with the Holy Roman Empire and other states in the West up until the 4th Crusade, basically. You've completely glossed over the Renaissance of the empire around 1000 AD (550 years after the West fell) under John Tzimiskes, Basil II, etc. You can blame this on the decline of Abbasid power if you want, but even if the caliphate _technically_ held territory in Syria/Lebanon, there was no question as to military superiority. The Byzantines raided with impunity and got tribute from the local emirs. Constantinople lost 90% of its population after the plague of Justinian, and a recurring series of outbreaks over the next centuries, plus a loss of manpower after the desperate end of the Sassanian wars under Heraclius (which Heraclius technically won, but both empires were so diminished that they were easy prey for the new caliphate). It rebounded. Never to its maximum, but it was back near 750000 under the Macedonians. So, the empire was ok until 660, lost territory, rebounded in the 10th century, and was arguably at its best organizationally and culturally until the real decline started during Manzikert. It lasted 1000 years. Please read something other than Gibbon, or at least listen to The History of Byzantium (which follows on where The History of Rome left off). History is not a static field, and the Byzantines are rapidly becoming rehabilitated as more documents come up.

by ng12 8y ago

> filling the vacuum caused by the collapse of the Roman empire What about the "other" Roman empire, the Byzantines? They seemed to have filled the vacuum even better.

basilgohar 8y ago

There's a reason "Byzantine" when used as an adjective also has the negative connotation of "Overly complex or intricate." [1] It was not really a good successor in terms of success for the Roman Empire. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Byzantine#Adjective https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Byzantine#Adjective

ng12 8y ago
> It was not really a good successor in terms of success for the Roman Empire. How so? Constantinople was the richest, most recognized city on the European continent from the fall of Rome to the Fourth Crusade -- over half a millenium. At it's zenith it ruled almost as much territory as the Roman Empire. There's a reason the Islamic caliphs coveted it so much. Remember that there was a lot of distrust between the Latin and Greek worlds after the Great Schism. The whole reason we're calling them Byzantines instead of Romans (or even Greek/Eastern Romans) is because Renaissance scholars wanted to emphasize Latin Romans over (the still existing) Greek Romans.

cat199 8y ago

Sorry, this is history from a western/anglo-centric perspective. The eastern empire simply doesn't exist after 1054.

beat 8y ago
The eastern empire lost most of its territory by 800, reducing it to a dying regional power. But yeah, totally a European perspective. Aside from the Romans, "Europe" barely comes into play in history, until Spain reached America and started bringing back enormous piles of gold.
- ng12 8y ago
  The Byzantines controlled all of Anatolia, the Balkans, and parts of Italy around 1000 and retained much of it through the Komnenian Restoration. I wouldn't call the empire "dying" until after 1204. And remember, even at it's lowest Constantinople itself was regarded extremely highly -- most famously the Rus adopted Eastern Orthodoxy after being so impressed by the city.
HarryHirsch 8y ago
You can go to any Orthodox church and see the liturgy celebrated as it was in the times of Emperor Basil Bulgar-Slayer. Constantinople survives.

pishpash 8y ago

Exactly. It's not like the Byzantines didn't keep the writings of the Greeks. They were the Greeks. Greece still owns islands right off of Turkey, being from the very start a circum-Aegean state.

billfruit 8y ago

It does seem amazing to me that on one occasion, the Eastern Empire even occupied Rome itself for a few brief years during/after tge Gothic wars.

beat 8y ago

The Byzantines were an eastern empire, not a western one - more aligned with the Orient than with Europe. That said, pretty much the moment Islam appeared, they ripped Egypt and the Levant out of Byzantine hands - reducing the "Byzantine empire" from "empire" to "regional kingdom that will eventually get sacked". Less than a century after Islam started, they were laying siege to Constantinople. Over the next couple of centuries, Constantinople lost 90% of its population. Basically, they only lasted meaningfully for a few centuries, between the fall of the western empire and the rise of the Islamic empire. If you count the transition from the original Islamic conquest to the Ottoman empire as a single continuous system (as you're doing with the western Roman empire and the Byzantine empire), then the Islamic empire lasted for north of 13 centuries, finally dying only in the 20th century, the end of WWI.

evol262 8y ago
The Byzantines were as aligned with the "Orient" as Alexander was. They held onto territory in Italy until a full 600 years after the West fell (once Belisarius recaptured it in the 600s). They had active diplomacy with the Holy Roman Empire and other states in the West up until the 4th Crusade, basically. You've completely glossed over the Renaissance of the empire around 1000 AD (550 years after the West fell) under John Tzimiskes, Basil II, etc. You can blame this on the decline of Abbasid power if you want, but even if the caliphate _technically_ held territory in Syria/Lebanon, there was no question as to military superiority. The Byzantines raided with impunity and got tribute from the local emirs. Constantinople lost 90% of its population after the plague of Justinian, and a recurring series of outbreaks over the next centuries, plus a loss of manpower after the desperate end of the Sassanian wars under Heraclius (which Heraclius technically won, but both empires were so diminished that they were easy prey for the new caliphate). It rebounded. Never to its maximum, but it was back near 750000 under the Macedonians. So, the empire was ok until 660, lost territory, rebounded in the 10th century, and was arguably at its best organizationally and culturally until the real decline started during Manzikert. It lasted 1000 years. Please read something other than Gibbon, or at least listen to The History of Byzantium (which follows on where The History of Rome left off). History is not a static field, and the Byzantines are rapidly becoming rehabilitated as more documents come up.