3 ms·

> European enough That’s a modern perception though. The Byzantine Empire was considered to be the centre of Christendom will into the Crusade period. > that

> European enough That’s a modern perception though. The Byzantine Empire was considered to be the centre of Christendom will into the Crusade period. > that the next structure of such massive complexity would only be built a 1000ish years after it. Climate change and plague were the primary reasons why urban populations collapsed. Even if little technology was lost (not necessarily true) there was simply no need or resources to build a new monumental structures throughout Europe when you could have just reused the buildings constructed by the Romans.

twelve40 4y ago
> centre of Christendom Not after the Great Schism which happened before the crusades and the East started getting treated as pretty much an alien or even an enemy culture, and certainly not after the backstabbing of the Fourth Crusade in 1204, when the West damn near killed that culture. And in any case, the Byzantine doesn't seem to have nearly the impact of the Renaissance or other Western inventions of the second millennium, even before the Great Schism, or at any point in its existence. For better or worse. > little technology was lost Maybe. Again, from strictly a layperson's non-historian perspective, I find the most amazing things being built and invented mostly post 1300's (and before 400-ish), and not much to write home about in between. But maybe it's just me.
- qwytw 4y ago
  The great schism wasn't that great at the time. There were multiple schism before it and after it. And contemporary historians didn’t really see it as some permanent irreconcilable split between the eastern and western Church. They hardly even mentioned it. It’s a bit like the fall of the Western Roman empire. Seems like a huge event for us but people living at the time hardly noticed it. The Latin and Greek/Orthodox churches were drifting apart for centuries prior to the “schism” and continued doing so afterwards but its significance wasn’t that clear at the time. At the beginning of the first Crusade the Emperor was still seen as the universal/supreme ruler of the Christian world (at least in theory) and recognized as such both by the church and most European monarchs. > And in any case, the Byzantine doesn't seem to have nearly the impact of the Renaissance or other Western inventions of the second millennium, even before the Great Schism, or at any point in its existence. For better or worse That’s debatable. I agree that relatively little innovation occurred but most ancient knowledge was primary preserved in Byzantium. It’s possibly that the Renaissance would not have occurred had the Roman empire fallen during the dark ages. Arguably it began in the Byzantine empire during the 12 and 13th centuries and just shifted to Italy in the later centuries. Italy was socially, economically and culturally interlinked with the empire and Italian humanism is pretty clearly inspired by Byzantine humanism which preceded it. > of the Fourth Crusade in 1204, when the West damn near killed that culture True. But the west wasn’t exactly homogenous either. Besides religious matters there was no clear boundary between Byzantium and the Latin world. Arguably most of Italy had more in common with the Empire than with the Germans. Venice was basically an offshoot of the Byzantine world. It was closer to the empire socially and culturally than to any place outside of the Italian peninsula. Of course to most French and German crusaders it seemed like a fairly alien place, but they probably feel similarly in Venice or Naples.
  - twelve40 4y ago
    well, both the Germans and the people of North Italy were a part of the same empire at the time - that's from a formal standpoint - but more importantly, the popes were tightening the one-man grip on things ever since they crowned Charlemagne, so I still have a feeling that none of those people held Constantinople in particularly high regard. Venice being somewhat of an exception, but they also happily participated in the looting.
    - yywwbbn 4y ago
      True it depends on the exact period we are talking about. The situation was pretty different in ~1000AD and in 1200. By the later period Constantinople’s influence in the west was waning or even non-existant. e.g. by during the first Crusade there was a clear expectation that the Emperor will be the one in charge and will lead the crusaders to the holy land. It was basically a relief expedition organized to help the Empire defend itself from the Turks. There was clear cooperation between the pope and the empire. While cultural and linguistic differences were obvious to everyone there was no clear animosity (e.g. a loose modern analogy would be the relationship between Europe/EU and America) Obviously it didn’t exactly turn out the way the Pope, Emperor and most of the crusaders expected. The subsequent Crusades were very different in this regard. And 12th seems to be around the time when the political split between the papacy, the latin world and the empire became permanent.
      - Archelaos 4y ago
        > And 12th seems to be around the time when the political split between the papacy, the latin world and the empire became permanent. And even that is an insight from retrospect. During the following centuries there were several attempts to overcome the Great Schism. Due to the political decline of the East at that times, the agreements more or less reflected to positions of the West, most notably an agreement (culminating in the papal bull "Laetentur Caeli: Bulla Unionis Graecorum", 6 July 1439) reached during the Council of Florence (starting at 1431), that would have ended the schism, but met with fierce resistance in the years that followed from important groups in the East (such as the monsk of Mount Athos and the population of Constantinopel).[1] The fate of the agreement was still somewhat open when Constantinopel fell to the Ottomans in 1453. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_of_Union_with_the_Greeks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_of_Union_with_the_Greeks

twelve40 4y ago

> centre of Christendom Not after the Great Schism which happened before the crusades and the East started getting treated as pretty much an alien or even an enemy culture, and certainly not after the backstabbing of the Fourth Crusade in 1204, when the West damn near killed that culture. And in any case, the Byzantine doesn't seem to have nearly the impact of the Renaissance or other Western inventions of the second millennium, even before the Great Schism, or at any point in its existence. For better or worse. > little technology was lost Maybe. Again, from strictly a layperson's non-historian perspective, I find the most amazing things being built and invented mostly post 1300's (and before 400-ish), and not much to write home about in between. But maybe it's just me.

qwytw 4y ago
The great schism wasn't that great at the time. There were multiple schism before it and after it. And contemporary historians didn’t really see it as some permanent irreconcilable split between the eastern and western Church. They hardly even mentioned it. It’s a bit like the fall of the Western Roman empire. Seems like a huge event for us but people living at the time hardly noticed it. The Latin and Greek/Orthodox churches were drifting apart for centuries prior to the “schism” and continued doing so afterwards but its significance wasn’t that clear at the time. At the beginning of the first Crusade the Emperor was still seen as the universal/supreme ruler of the Christian world (at least in theory) and recognized as such both by the church and most European monarchs. > And in any case, the Byzantine doesn't seem to have nearly the impact of the Renaissance or other Western inventions of the second millennium, even before the Great Schism, or at any point in its existence. For better or worse That’s debatable. I agree that relatively little innovation occurred but most ancient knowledge was primary preserved in Byzantium. It’s possibly that the Renaissance would not have occurred had the Roman empire fallen during the dark ages. Arguably it began in the Byzantine empire during the 12 and 13th centuries and just shifted to Italy in the later centuries. Italy was socially, economically and culturally interlinked with the empire and Italian humanism is pretty clearly inspired by Byzantine humanism which preceded it. > of the Fourth Crusade in 1204, when the West damn near killed that culture True. But the west wasn’t exactly homogenous either. Besides religious matters there was no clear boundary between Byzantium and the Latin world. Arguably most of Italy had more in common with the Empire than with the Germans. Venice was basically an offshoot of the Byzantine world. It was closer to the empire socially and culturally than to any place outside of the Italian peninsula. Of course to most French and German crusaders it seemed like a fairly alien place, but they probably feel similarly in Venice or Naples.
- twelve40 4y ago
  well, both the Germans and the people of North Italy were a part of the same empire at the time - that's from a formal standpoint - but more importantly, the popes were tightening the one-man grip on things ever since they crowned Charlemagne, so I still have a feeling that none of those people held Constantinople in particularly high regard. Venice being somewhat of an exception, but they also happily participated in the looting.
  - yywwbbn 4y ago
    True it depends on the exact period we are talking about. The situation was pretty different in ~1000AD and in 1200. By the later period Constantinople’s influence in the west was waning or even non-existant. e.g. by during the first Crusade there was a clear expectation that the Emperor will be the one in charge and will lead the crusaders to the holy land. It was basically a relief expedition organized to help the Empire defend itself from the Turks. There was clear cooperation between the pope and the empire. While cultural and linguistic differences were obvious to everyone there was no clear animosity (e.g. a loose modern analogy would be the relationship between Europe/EU and America) Obviously it didn’t exactly turn out the way the Pope, Emperor and most of the crusaders expected. The subsequent Crusades were very different in this regard. And 12th seems to be around the time when the political split between the papacy, the latin world and the empire became permanent.
    - Archelaos 4y ago
      > And 12th seems to be around the time when the political split between the papacy, the latin world and the empire became permanent. And even that is an insight from retrospect. During the following centuries there were several attempts to overcome the Great Schism. Due to the political decline of the East at that times, the agreements more or less reflected to positions of the West, most notably an agreement (culminating in the papal bull "Laetentur Caeli: Bulla Unionis Graecorum", 6 July 1439) reached during the Council of Florence (starting at 1431), that would have ended the schism, but met with fierce resistance in the years that followed from important groups in the East (such as the monsk of Mount Athos and the population of Constantinopel).[1] The fate of the agreement was still somewhat open when Constantinopel fell to the Ottomans in 1453. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_of_Union_with_the_Greeks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_of_Union_with_the_Greeks