5 ms·

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

by 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.
- beat 8y ago
  I'd also argue that Alexander was an oriental emperor, and even Rome had a lot more in common, economically and culturally, with the middle east than they ever had with northern/western Europe. Note the extent of the Roman empire in the east, relative to the west - they pretty much ignored everything north of the Mediterranean. The rebound of the Byzantines is a good point, but they never really reclaimed their former glory. Still, point taken. edit: Actually, going further with this, the modern "European-ness" of classical Roman and Greek culture is largely a retcon of actual history. The culture of western Europe had very little to do with the culture of ancient Greece, relative to, say, Egypt or Syria.
  - evol262 8y ago
    I'd disagree that the Romans had more in common with the Middle East than northern/western Europe purely on the basis that a substantial part of the feudal organization, religion, and law of northern/western Europe comes directly from the latter Empire. That's unfair as an argument, because we don't really know what was there before that (lack of Celtic writings), but it's also hard to disagree with. The Goths and Vandals were Romanized to a significant degree before they even came West. I don't think it's fair to say that Roman culture being European is a "retcon". Sure, for the Greeks, but the Romans were the forebears of virtually all European institutions, and any argument that the society Europe consciously modeled itself upon was somehow not European falls apart.
    - beat 8y ago
      Yeah, I can see that. Certainly, the Celts and Germans had plenty of contact with the Romans, and Roman bureaucracy and aristocracy (not to mention Roman-distributed Christianity) directly informed their institutions. But in a lot of ways, it's not so much an inheritance as a cargo cult, but it's still a valid connection. But Greek culture... yeah, that's a retcon.
      - GW150914 8y ago
        Of course Roman culture was itself a retread of Greek culture with a few mods thrown in, they even pulled an asset flip with the Greek pantheon.
ng12 8y ago
> the Islamic empire lasted for north of 13 centuries I mean if you count the Ottomans, Abbassids, Fatimids, Seljuks, Umayyads, and Rashiduns as one single entity, sure. By that measure you'd also have to consider the Romans and Byzantines (and maybe even the HRE) to be a single contiguous entity as well.
- beat 8y ago
  Why not? Everyone else seems to be considering the Romans and the Byzantines to be a single contiguous entity. Sauce for the goose.
  - ng12 8y ago
    That's the original argument I made to which you were replying. The Byzantines carried on the Roman torch.
    - evol262 8y ago
      The "Byzantines" WERE Roman and always called themselves such. They were the "Rum" to the Turks because they called themselves Roman. I'm not sure how a state which can trace a direct lineage of law and rulers back to Romulus is "carrying the torch".
      - ng12 8y ago
        We're falling into pedantry here. I'm very well aware of that fact, which is why I referenced it in the original post.
        evol262 8y ago
        I guess we agree to disagree. I just don't like calling them the "other" Romans, or even referring to them as the Byzantines who were carrying on the torch, when they never considered any such thing, and would never have referred to themselves as such. Then again, despite being an engineer by trade, I'm a historian specializing in Late Roman Antiquity (specifically, the Eastern Empire from Leo the Isaurian to Alexios I, so I'm probably a little pedantic about it.
madeuptempacct 8y ago
>devoted to advancing technology, peace, trade, and preservation of the writings of earlier civilization >peace >Less than a century after Islam started, they were laying siege to Constantinople. Pick one.
- evol262 8y ago
  Pretty sure this isn't 4chan. Don't conflate manifest destiny/religious destiny and culture. The caliphate(s) eventually gave up on sieging Constantinople after the utter failure of 717. But before that, they were essentially a collection of tribes which rapidly expanded, and whose opponents fell so quickly they felt they were destined to bring Islam to the entire world, with Constantinople as a prophecied conquest. This is less than 100 years after the Rashidun caliphate sprang into existence, and the Islamic Golden Age lasted for centuries after that. Beyond which, you should not assume that they were not peaceful just because they conquered their neighbors. The laws of the caliphate(s) were extraordinarily generous to believers of other religions, and the caliphate was internally peaceful, enforced charity, successful as a gateway for trade between the East and West, and, yes, actively preserved/translated the writings of previous civilizations until ~1100
  - madeuptempacct 8y ago
    > Beyond which, you should not assume that they were not peaceful just because they conquered their neighbors. That's the definition of not being peaceful. >The laws of the caliphate(s) were extraordinarily generous to believers of other religions As in, they were second-class citizens who were tolerated because they paid extra taxes? >Pretty sure this isn't 4chan. Yea, but I haven't been there or responded to anything with "implying implications" for years, so forgive me this indulgence.
    - evol262 8y ago
      Potato/potato. Do you consider the Pax Romana to be peaceful? Arguably, if your neighbors are "barbarians" or "infidels", the most peaceful thing you can do is conquer them to put an end to their incessant warring and impose civilization. Remember that the Arabs (prior to the caliphate) were used as proxy troops/mercenaries by the Persians/Romans for centuries under the guise of the Ghassanids and Lakhmids. This has repercussions. You can make the argument that the jizya made them second-class citizens who were tolerated, but you cannot make the argument that they were not tolerated, which stands in stark contrast to the various persecutions of other religious groups under Julian the Apostate, assorted Byzantines who decided that Arianism/whatever was heretical, Zoroastrianism's (well, the Sassanid rulers' interpretation of it) treatment of nonbelievers, etc. I'm not arguing that sharia is a modern, progressive system of law. In the context of 650 AD, though, it definitely was. > Yea, but I haven't been there or responded to anything with "implying implications" for years, so forgive me this indulgence. My comment is more that: > foo bar quuz baaz > foo Pick one Is underservedly dimissive and really doesn't serve to advance the conversation. I do it also (mostly on Reddit, I guess), but the statement you were replying to wasn't obviously fallacious. There's a lot of nuance which you can't hammer away with >implying

by beat 8y ago

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.

beat 8y ago
I'd also argue that Alexander was an oriental emperor, and even Rome had a lot more in common, economically and culturally, with the middle east than they ever had with northern/western Europe. Note the extent of the Roman empire in the east, relative to the west - they pretty much ignored everything north of the Mediterranean. The rebound of the Byzantines is a good point, but they never really reclaimed their former glory. Still, point taken. edit: Actually, going further with this, the modern "European-ness" of classical Roman and Greek culture is largely a retcon of actual history. The culture of western Europe had very little to do with the culture of ancient Greece, relative to, say, Egypt or Syria.
- evol262 8y ago
  I'd disagree that the Romans had more in common with the Middle East than northern/western Europe purely on the basis that a substantial part of the feudal organization, religion, and law of northern/western Europe comes directly from the latter Empire. That's unfair as an argument, because we don't really know what was there before that (lack of Celtic writings), but it's also hard to disagree with. The Goths and Vandals were Romanized to a significant degree before they even came West. I don't think it's fair to say that Roman culture being European is a "retcon". Sure, for the Greeks, but the Romans were the forebears of virtually all European institutions, and any argument that the society Europe consciously modeled itself upon was somehow not European falls apart.
  - beat 8y ago
    Yeah, I can see that. Certainly, the Celts and Germans had plenty of contact with the Romans, and Roman bureaucracy and aristocracy (not to mention Roman-distributed Christianity) directly informed their institutions. But in a lot of ways, it's not so much an inheritance as a cargo cult, but it's still a valid connection. But Greek culture... yeah, that's a retcon.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      Of course Roman culture was itself a retread of Greek culture with a few mods thrown in, they even pulled an asset flip with the Greek pantheon.

ng12 8y ago

> the Islamic empire lasted for north of 13 centuries I mean if you count the Ottomans, Abbassids, Fatimids, Seljuks, Umayyads, and Rashiduns as one single entity, sure. By that measure you'd also have to consider the Romans and Byzantines (and maybe even the HRE) to be a single contiguous entity as well.

beat 8y ago
Why not? Everyone else seems to be considering the Romans and the Byzantines to be a single contiguous entity. Sauce for the goose.
- ng12 8y ago
  That's the original argument I made to which you were replying. The Byzantines carried on the Roman torch.
  - evol262 8y ago
    The "Byzantines" WERE Roman and always called themselves such. They were the "Rum" to the Turks because they called themselves Roman. I'm not sure how a state which can trace a direct lineage of law and rulers back to Romulus is "carrying the torch".
    - ng12 8y ago
      We're falling into pedantry here. I'm very well aware of that fact, which is why I referenced it in the original post.
      - evol262 8y ago
        I guess we agree to disagree. I just don't like calling them the "other" Romans, or even referring to them as the Byzantines who were carrying on the torch, when they never considered any such thing, and would never have referred to themselves as such. Then again, despite being an engineer by trade, I'm a historian specializing in Late Roman Antiquity (specifically, the Eastern Empire from Leo the Isaurian to Alexios I, so I'm probably a little pedantic about it.

madeuptempacct 8y ago

>devoted to advancing technology, peace, trade, and preservation of the writings of earlier civilization >peace >Less than a century after Islam started, they were laying siege to Constantinople. Pick one.

evol262 8y ago
Pretty sure this isn't 4chan. Don't conflate manifest destiny/religious destiny and culture. The caliphate(s) eventually gave up on sieging Constantinople after the utter failure of 717. But before that, they were essentially a collection of tribes which rapidly expanded, and whose opponents fell so quickly they felt they were destined to bring Islam to the entire world, with Constantinople as a prophecied conquest. This is less than 100 years after the Rashidun caliphate sprang into existence, and the Islamic Golden Age lasted for centuries after that. Beyond which, you should not assume that they were not peaceful just because they conquered their neighbors. The laws of the caliphate(s) were extraordinarily generous to believers of other religions, and the caliphate was internally peaceful, enforced charity, successful as a gateway for trade between the East and West, and, yes, actively preserved/translated the writings of previous civilizations until ~1100
- madeuptempacct 8y ago
  > Beyond which, you should not assume that they were not peaceful just because they conquered their neighbors. That's the definition of not being peaceful. >The laws of the caliphate(s) were extraordinarily generous to believers of other religions As in, they were second-class citizens who were tolerated because they paid extra taxes? >Pretty sure this isn't 4chan. Yea, but I haven't been there or responded to anything with "implying implications" for years, so forgive me this indulgence.
  - evol262 8y ago
    Potato/potato. Do you consider the Pax Romana to be peaceful? Arguably, if your neighbors are "barbarians" or "infidels", the most peaceful thing you can do is conquer them to put an end to their incessant warring and impose civilization. Remember that the Arabs (prior to the caliphate) were used as proxy troops/mercenaries by the Persians/Romans for centuries under the guise of the Ghassanids and Lakhmids. This has repercussions. You can make the argument that the jizya made them second-class citizens who were tolerated, but you cannot make the argument that they were not tolerated, which stands in stark contrast to the various persecutions of other religious groups under Julian the Apostate, assorted Byzantines who decided that Arianism/whatever was heretical, Zoroastrianism's (well, the Sassanid rulers' interpretation of it) treatment of nonbelievers, etc. I'm not arguing that sharia is a modern, progressive system of law. In the context of 650 AD, though, it definitely was. > Yea, but I haven't been there or responded to anything with "implying implications" for years, so forgive me this indulgence. My comment is more that: > foo bar quuz baaz > foo Pick one Is underservedly dimissive and really doesn't serve to advance the conversation. I do it also (mostly on Reddit, I guess), but the statement you were replying to wasn't obviously fallacious. There's a lot of nuance which you can't hammer away with >implying