The Byzantines never achieved anything of value in their entire 1,000 year history?

[neoptolemos]

This thread was having almost the exact same discussion whether Byzantine = Greek: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...Age-of-Empires

To quote from what I said there: People shouldn't conflate culture and institutional history. The culture of the 'Byzantine Empire' was different from Augustan Rome. But the culture of Augustan Rome was also very different from the Early (or even Middle) Republic, so I find that argument very weak. So, even though the culture has changed, Byzantine Empire = Roman Empire.

The whole dating discussion is also arbitrary (does Byzantine history begin in 330? 395? 476? Later? Does it end in 1204 or 1453?). You're always going to find an argument for one date or the other. Scholars have already wasted plenty of ink on that. What we can say is that in the chaos of the sixth and seventh centuries, the Eastern Roman Empire finally transitions from a more classical culture to a more Medieval culture. Peter Brown compares the transition to a train traveller: the land passes by, but only at the end of the journey does he realize the landscape has changed.

That's is a very coherent and absolutely well thought off and backed point/argument
I completely agree my friend.

That'd have been me

I understand your reluctance. Part of me also wants to see the ERE and its reconquista as a sort of glorious last Roman stand. The whole "Great civilized empire reconquers the land which rightfully belongs to her" is a great narrative, and very fun for great strategy games too...

But let's face it: reality is often more messy. Consider, for example, the following quote by Oxford scholar, Chris Wickham:



There is also this great article I've read for my own research, Brian Coke, '476, The Manufacture of a Turning Point', which basically claims that Eastern Roman propaganda created the notion that the Western Empire fell in 476, hence portraying the Ostrogoths, Vandals, etc. as barbarians and heretics who needed to be kicked out. This legitimated the Justinianic wars, but one may wonder whether contemporaries living in Italy really thought they were not living in a Roman Empire anymore.

Fair points there, I don't disagree in principle though.
The emerging and the established Germanic kingdoms were far from being "barbaric" or "uncivilized" and for certain the Roman empire was not at any point of its history "morally" or "culturally" superior to her neighbors,
My argument focuses more on the significant affect of the plague on the areas reconquered as well as the imperial lands themselves.
The devastation of war is not to be underestimated especially a costly imperialistic war like the Roman reconquista. However, the coexistence of the plague with the aftermath of the war makes in my view almost impossible to attribute solely to the Romans the consequent collapse. It is unfair IMHO and downplays the huge importance of the plague as a turning point of the European history.

[bigdaddy1204]

It is unfair IMHO and downplays the huge importance of the plague as a turning point of the European history.

There is a book about this, called "Justinian's flea". It's all about the plague of Justinian and the author argues that this event brought about the end of classical civilisation. One of the most memorable things about the book was that it suggested it was an unusual distribution of the monsoon rains in Africa that caused a certain species of African rat to migrate further north than they would normally have done - bringing with them the fleas that carried the deadly plague. From there, they travelled up the Nile and from Egypt infected the whole empire.

Essentially, the Roman Empire was destroyed as a result of the movements of African rodents!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Justinians-.../dp/0224073699

[Rinan]

^Damn those African rodents! The legions will crush these barbarian hordes of furry creatures!!

Seriously though, I agree that the plague was a very important factor, but there is a problem with attributing just the plague for the downfall of the classical world. The Antonine Plague weakened the Roman Empire, but did not kill it off. Equally, the Black Death caused plenty of misery and death, but arguably Medieval Europe emerged stronger than before. So, we need to explain why the 6th century Roman world did collapse and transform so utterly due to the plague.

Part of that reason lies in the many slow transformations of late antiquity: the slow undermining of the decurial class, and thus the dissapearance of classical cities; the rise of Christianity and popular devotion; increasing regionalisation, rise of a military elite at the expense of a civil elite (and the corresponding retreat of men of learning into the church), economic downturn and rising insecurity.

Among all that, enter Justinian, with his eyes set on grandeur and a false dream of restoration...

[bigdaddy1204]

Justinian was a megalomaniac whose rule was a catastophe for just about everyone. He slaughtered 30,000 of his own people in the hippodrome during the Nika riots, which were a legitimate protest against his harsh authoritarian rule. Today, Justinian would be put on trial as a murderous and tyrannical dictator and bloodthirsty warlord and hanged for his crimes against humanity.

[Kyriakos]

^Unless he is part of the West; then nothing would happen to him

[alhoon]

Justinian was a megalomaniac whose rule was a catastophe for just about everyone. He slaughtered 30,000 of his own people in the hippodrome during the Nika riots, which were a legitimate protest against his harsh authoritarian rule. Today, Justinian would be put on trial as a murderous and tyrannical dictator and bloodthirsty warlord and hanged for his crimes against humanity.

It's not like what you describe was rare for monarchs in the middle ages...
Justinian brought us at least his legal code* and reconquered much of the Empire. You may of course say "and what makes you think the Vandals or Iberians liked that?" well, nothing really... just saying.
And the 30K dead in Nika riots have burned half the city or something; at no point till 1204 Constantinople suffered such extensive damage. And of course, it was done because Greeks never really liked taxes not because of authoritarian rule. They wanted to kill Ioannis Capadocis (treasury guy) because while he was (probably) stealing he was making tax evasion and tax avoidance harder for his enemies.


*That included killing homosexuals but just limiting paedophilia, never said it was perfect.

[Kyriakos]

Speaking of taxes, and bad emperors, there was also the 'Parapinakes' usurper, some centuries after Justinian

[Condottiere 40K]

I think only three Byzantines really register in the West, Justinian, Theodora and Belisarius.

[bigdaddy1204]

I think only three Byzantines really register in the West, Justinian, Theodora and Belisarius.

Possibly Alexios Komnenos? And maybe Constantine XI, the last emperor of Byzantium, who died heroically while defending the walls in a doomed defence in 1453?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Although come to think of it, was it really so heroic? Considering there wasn't really any chance of victory? From the perspective of the Islamic civilisation, Constantine XI was offered a chance to peacefully surrender the city. If he had said "Yes", might have been a more peaceful outcome (at least for the ordinary citizens). This did happen at Trebizond a few years later, where the city sensibly just surrendered without any loss of life. Overall one wonders if lives were wasted needlessly if the defence hadn't any realistic chance of success.

[alhoon]

Considering how the last stand of the Empire caused great aggravation to the way larger forces of the attackers, how they were working night and day to close the walls and caused the enemy morale to go dangerously low, to the point of Janissaries threatening a revolt in the case of retreat, I would say that yes, it was heroic. Some things are more worthy than life.

[bigdaddy1204]

That may be true. But even if they won, the end was only a matter of time. It would have taken nothing less than divine intervention to have turned around the fortunes of the Byzantine Empire by that time. At the absolute most wildly optimistic scenario, if the Ottoman state somehow collapsed and fragmented, the Turkish capital is still at Edirne just a few miles from Constantinople. There is no real prospect of help from any neighbouring power, and the city is cut off by hundreds of miles of enemy territory. The position is hopeless.

I couldn't find a map of 1453, but the map below shows 1400 and already the Ottomans had overwhelming superiority. By 1453 the situation would only be worse. Realistically, the sane thing to do would be to simply surrender. One has to go back at least a century or more to reach a point where the Byzantine Empire had any hope at all. The year 1354 (when Turks crossed the Bosporus and took Gallipoli on the European side of the water) may be taken as the point of no return for the Byzantine Empire, imo.

[LinusLinothorax]

The Arabs and Turks called Byzantines Rum, meaning Romans.

However I think there is a need in modern history for a word that makes a distinction between the Roman Empire of Augustus and the later medieval state based in Anatolia and Greece. They were very different and just calling them Romans doesn't really seem sufficient. I can tolerate the use of Eastern Roman Empire up to 1204, but after that I think it should be Byzantine Empire, or even Empire of Nicaea.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The following reference to "Romans" is from Surah 30, Quran:

‏‏30:2 غلبت الروم
‏30:3 في ادنى الارض وهم من بعد غلبهم سيغلبون‏30:4 في بضع سنين لله الامر من قبل ومن بعد ويومئذ يفرح المؤمنون
‏30:5 بنصر الله ينصر من يشاء وهو العزيز الرحيم

It says "the Romans have been defeated, in the lowest land. But after being defeated, they will emerge victorious, within three to nine years." Interestingly, this prediction was made in 615AD, a time when the Romans were losing the war against Persia badly and it seemed doubtful if the empire would even survive, let alone go on to gain victory. Yet against the odds, they somehow turned the tide and eventually defeated the Persians, winning all their lands back exactly nine years later. It was a temporary reprieve, of course...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bonus fact: the "lowest land” mentioned in the quote above has an interesting meaning.The places where the main battles took place (in Damascus and Jerusalem) lie in the Great Rift Valley, a low-lying area that extends for many miles. Within the Great Rift Valley, the lowest point is the shoreline of the Dead Sea (near Jerusalem), with an altitude of around 400 meters below sea level. In fact, no land point on earth has a lower altitude than the shoreline of the Dead Sea.

Bonus fact 2: The generally accepted translation of "adna" is "nearest", therefore the verse reads: "in the nearest land." Does also make more sense, doesn't it? Now please spare us with your Muslim agenda.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I think only three Byzantines really register in the West, Justinian, Theodora and Belisarius.

This is pretty much true. Actually our school systems skip over classical Roman history as well. At least, that's how it is here in the US. We go from Greek/Alexander straight to Medieval basically, only briefly mentioning the Late Republic and Caesar and Augustus, which is just basically the end of the "Greek" unit in US schools. After that they mention Constantine and Justinian/Theodora as a finale to the rise of Christianity unit, basically, then go to Islam, then into Medieval stuff.

[sanbourne]

This is pretty much true. Actually our school systems skip over classical Roman history as well. At least, that's how it is here in the US. We go from Greek/Alexander straight to Medieval basically, only briefly mentioning the Late Republic and Caesar and Augustus, which is just basically the end of the "Greek" unit in US schools. After that they mention Constantine and Justinian/Theodora as a finale to the rise of Christianity unit, basically, then go to Islam, then into Medieval stuff.

How is Ancient history divided in US' high schools?

[Kyriakos]

I think only three Byzantines really register in the West, Justinian, Theodora and Belisarius.

Maybe in school systems, although Justinian wasn't a good emperor anyway.
Yet there are many other notable byzantine emperors:

Herakleios (and the massive final byzantine-sassanid war)
Basil II (don't be myopic )
The Komnenoi, maybe more notably Alexios and Ioannis I.
Michael VIII, the one who restored the byz empire to some relative degree, is said to have been mainly a skilled politician, though he started as a usurper in Nicaea. Maybe he even did organize the sicilian vespers.
The final emperor, due to symbolic as well as virtuous reasons.

Worst byz emperors were many, on the other hand, the usual Phokas family schemers and usurpers, and many others who plunged the empire again and again into civil wars.

[Roma_Victrix]

How is Ancient history divided in US' high schools?

Ancient history is divided into two parts: the founding of Ancient Athens by George Washington, and the founding of Rome...by George Washington.

Actually, to be honest, I can still remember my old high school history courses (and my college ones, of course). We covered Bronze Age civilizations like Sumer, Egypt, and Harappa, had a separate thing for ancient China (Shang, Zhou, Qin and Han dynasties, but didn't go beyond that point), covered the Persian Empire and ancient Greece, then the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, and we even had a little chapter on the Byzantines! Hurray! It didn't really cover Byzantine history after Justinian, though. The rise of Islam was naturally covered next, but overall Middle Eastern history was cut short there until the modern period. We also surprisingly learned about the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia and such, plus the Swahili of Tanzania. Then we dived right into the Medieval period, and from the Early Middle Ages onward until like World War One the courses were basically only on Western civilization. The Renaissance took up a huge amount of time, as did the Enlightenment, Age of Sail, European Colonial period (which at least mentioned Latin America), and Industrial Revolution. By that point world history in general was pushed aside in favor of teaching American history, which is logical if you live in the US, but they did at least teach us about the French Revolution and Napoleon before ignoring pre-WWI Europe.

[athanaric]

Ancient history is divided into two parts: the founding of Ancient Athens by George Washington, and the founding of Rome...by George Washington.

Actually, to be honest, I can still remember my old high school history courses (and my college ones, of course). We covered Bronze Age civilizations like Sumer, Egypt, and Harappa, had a separate thing for ancient China (Shang, Zhou, Qin and Han dynasties, but didn't go beyond that point), covered the Persian Empire and ancient Greece, then the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, and we even had a little chapter on the Byzantines! Hurray! It didn't really cover Byzantine history after Justinian, though. The rise of Islam was naturally covered next, but overall Middle Eastern history was cut short there until the modern period. We also surprisingly learned about the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia and such, plus the Swahili of Tanzania. Then we dived right into the Medieval period, and from the Early Middle Ages onward until like World War One the courses were basically only on Western civilization. The Renaissance took up a huge amount of time, as did the Enlightenment, Age of Sail, European Colonial period (which at least mentioned Latin America), and Industrial Revolution. By that point world history in general was pushed aside in favor of teaching American history, which is logical if you live in the US, but they did at least teach us about the French Revolution and Napoleon before ignoring pre-WWI Europe.

That's an amazingly thorough curriculum though - most people (at least around here) never learn anything about half of these topics in school.

[Condottiere 40K]

There's really not much to see during the Dark Ages.

[bigdaddy1204]

There's really not much to see during the Dark Ages.

'Dark Ages' is an evil imperialistic word of the capitalistic Eurocentrist empire of the west, which dominates and oppresses the whole world by military might while forcing its empty culture at gunpoint.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I actually like western culture and people. This post is a tribute to a joke posted in 2006 by a dear French friend of mine, in parody of nationalistic posters (Flamarande, for those interested). But you can never be too sure everyone will 'get' the parody of nationalistic type posts.

Back then we used to post a lot about history and one of the amusing things was you'd get these amazingly adamant nationalistic type posters, who were convinced that their small Balkan country was the most important and should have been included by CA in Medieval II Total War.

More seriously, i think the term is meaningless outside western Europe. In China, India, Persia and the Middle East, that period was not a 'Dark Age' at all. As for the Americas, at that time the Mayans and others were still in the Neolithic/pre-Bronze Age.

[conon394]

Ancient history is divided into two parts: the founding of Ancient Athens by George Washington, and the founding of Rome...by George Washington.

Actually, to be honest, I can still remember my old high school history courses (and my college ones, of course). We covered Bronze Age civilizations like Sumer, Egypt, and Harappa, had a separate thing for ancient China (Shang, Zhou, Qin and Han dynasties, but didn't go beyond that point), covered the Persian Empire and ancient Greece, then the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, and we even had a little chapter on the Byzantines! Hurray! It didn't really cover Byzantine history after Justinian, though. The rise of Islam was naturally covered next, but overall Middle Eastern history was cut short there until the modern period. We also surprisingly learned about the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia and such, plus the Swahili of Tanzania. Then we dived right into the Medieval period, and from the Early Middle Ages onward until like World War One the courses were basically only on Western civilization. The Renaissance took up a huge amount of time, as did the Enlightenment, Age of Sail, European Colonial period (which at least mentioned Latin America), and Industrial Revolution. By that point world history in general was pushed aside in favor of teaching American history, which is logical if you live in the US, but they did at least teach us about the French Revolution and Napoleon before ignoring pre-WWI Europe.

Too be fair and can't say how old you are. There is CW background for the break. Lynn White had pretty much won with his Medieval revolution in technology ting for a good junk of the middle of time up till maybe the late 90s (and the associated Finely view of the ancient economy), which makes Medieval to Renaissance Europe pivotal. And facts are facts From Columbus until WW1 Europe more or less dictated the fate of the world and proceeded to do so. I mean really I am sure you have a lot of interesting discussion about Indonesian culture and history in 1750, but it rather more important to know the Dutch showed up and ran the game at least at HS school level.

----

That's an amazingly thorough curriculum though - most people (at least around here) never learn anything about half of these topics in school.

It was pretty standard actually back in my day before Republican's demonized all taxes and started voting for rank ignorance. Sad to sad say in Idaho I have to send my kids to Catholic school to can a comparable history education now - here. I mean sad for my wallet, not the quality of the school.