3 ms·

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

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.
      - evol262 8y ago
        I mean, not really. The Romans, as always, picked and chose the parts they liked and integrated them into their own mythology. The Roman pantheon was a superset of the Greek pantheon (among others), as evocatio was used as a final part of conquest. The Romans also stole the gods of their foes, and more than just the Greeks. Roman culture, though, was heavily focused on superstition and virtue, rather than logic, and is not in any way a retread of Greek culture.
      - 8y ago

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.
    - evol262 8y ago
      I mean, not really. The Romans, as always, picked and chose the parts they liked and integrated them into their own mythology. The Roman pantheon was a superset of the Greek pantheon (among others), as evocatio was used as a final part of conquest. The Romans also stole the gods of their foes, and more than just the Greeks. Roman culture, though, was heavily focused on superstition and virtue, rather than logic, and is not in any way a retread of Greek culture.
    - 8y ago