4 ms·

> Without them, we might have lost most of the writing of ancient Greece. This is a really bizarre interpretation, considering that the 'writing of ancient Gre

> Without them, we might have lost most of the writing of ancient Greece. This is a really bizarre interpretation, considering that the 'writing of ancient Greece' was only endangered due the destruction of the eastern Roman Empire (and the Persian Empire) by the Muslim conquests. The era of the conquests was extremely chaotic and a major setback for civilization in the region. The historical record practically falls apart because of this. Prior to the conquests, the eastern Roman Empire and its long heritage of learning and culture was trucking along quite happily, even if there were periodic border conflicts with the Persians. Even during the conquests and their ever-shrinking territory, the Romans maintained their technological superiority over the surrounding civilizations. The final conquest of Constantinople, and the consequent fleeing of the learned with their texts westward, was a key factor in helping along the European Renaissance. It's always been a bit strange to me how the history of the Roman Empire is pretty much ignored after the fall of the western empire. The East remained one of the greatest, wealthiest, and most educated powers in the world for centuries.

kashprime 8y ago
I think the sack of Constantinople by the Latins in their 4th crusade did more to secure Byzantium's decline than any single action by the Arabs. The Turks merely delivered a coup de grace centuries later.
- Amezarak 8y ago
  The Fourth Crusade was devastating, but Rome had already lost nearly all its territory to the Arabs by that time - which is in part what set off the crusades in the first place. The Muslim conquests had taken all Roman territory outside Anatolia by 730, many centuries before the Fourth Crusade. The period surrounding the Muslim conquests is almost as disruptive in the historical record as the Bronze Age collapse. A lot of writing either gets lost or destroyed during that period. Sources dry up after ominous allusions to doom and gloom. The Latin sack was bad for Constantinople, but isn't nearly that bad. The emperors were also very aware that the loss of nearly all their holdings was the beginning of the end, and that they were essentially caretakers, only able to delay the end. It's very sobering reading what they wrote.

kashprime 8y ago

I think the sack of Constantinople by the Latins in their 4th crusade did more to secure Byzantium's decline than any single action by the Arabs. The Turks merely delivered a coup de grace centuries later.

Amezarak 8y ago
The Fourth Crusade was devastating, but Rome had already lost nearly all its territory to the Arabs by that time - which is in part what set off the crusades in the first place. The Muslim conquests had taken all Roman territory outside Anatolia by 730, many centuries before the Fourth Crusade. The period surrounding the Muslim conquests is almost as disruptive in the historical record as the Bronze Age collapse. A lot of writing either gets lost or destroyed during that period. Sources dry up after ominous allusions to doom and gloom. The Latin sack was bad for Constantinople, but isn't nearly that bad. The emperors were also very aware that the loss of nearly all their holdings was the beginning of the end, and that they were essentially caretakers, only able to delay the end. It's very sobering reading what they wrote.