3 ms·
It's also how the Byzantine Empire went into its downwards trajectory starting with the late 1000s. In fact, it was a little more complicated, as the Empire had
by paganel 4y ago
It's also how the Byzantine Empire went into its downwards trajectory starting with the late 1000s. In fact, it was a little more complicated, as the Empire had to resort to using mercenaries because its theme system had been basically broken into pieces by the Empire oligarchy and by the Church, so Byzantium having to resort to mercenaries in order to defend itself was mostly, by that time, a consequence of said oligarchy and Byzantine Church doing their thing against the small Byzantine tax-payers.
And before someone starts saying that the Roman Empire lived "through" the Byzantine Empire all the way to 1453 I have to say that from my point of view that is only valid until the late 6th-early 7th century, by the end of Heraclius's [1] reign the Byzantine Empire was a thing totally different compared to the Roman Empire.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius
- mr_toad 4y agoThe later emperors were also reluctant to rely on armies commanded by native Byzantine generals, who had a long track record of usurpation.
- otter-rock 4y agoI can agree that it ceased being the Roman Empire per se, but I don't see it as being that much different from the end of the Roman Kingdom or the Roman Republic. It's still a continuation.
- panick21_ 4y agoThis exactly. The argument about non continuation are nonsense. Yes of course after 500 years it was different. Look at any state with 500 year and it will not be exactly the same.
- panick21_ 4y agoI don't think this is a good argument. The Byzantine Empire was at a peak around 1000 and the main reasons for it decline after that is not mercenaries but rather that Basil didn't have an heir and his daughters were left in power and had no interest in ruling so that only a few decades later the state was disaster. Combine that with the rise of a new powerful enemy and you have a disaster on your hands. New evidence suggest that the Theme system was only barley function for a long time before the decline. In fact, going away from that system is partly why they were so powerful by the year 1000. > by the end of Heraclius's [1] reign I don't agree with that at all. If there is any reasonable point to talk about non-continuation it would be 1204.
- paganel 4y agoRegarding Basil II, an empire shouldn't stay in/depend on just one dynasty, or just one exceptional person (even though it helps having such person at the helm), I'd say the rot was there even when Basil II was on the throne but the latter years proved that in the absence of such an exceptional leader there was almost nothing holding it up all together. I stand by my opinion regarding the Heraclius era. I would have said Justinian, but one can still see traces of the Roman heritage here and there during his reign, but after Danube limes fell in the late 500s it wasn't the "hellenised" Romans battling the Slavs and Avars, but the Byzantines (yes, I know they were calling themselves the Rhōmaîoi). Back to Heraclius's reign, once the Arabs came on the scene things were totally, totally different. I know people now like to diss on Pirenne for his Mohammed and Charlemagne and for how he insisted on the disruption, in fact the total destruction, of most of Mediterranean trade caused by their advent on the historical scene, but he was, in essence, right, especially when it comes to the "Western" Mediterranean (not sure how I would exactly define "Western" Mediterranean for that period, hence the quotes). Things were never the same after that. Also, the Byzantine Iconoclasm phenomenon wouldn't have happened without the close contacts with the Arabs, and, again, this is of course my own personal pov, Iconoclasm is totally a non-Roman-like phenomenon.