Byzantine thread

[Faeelin]

Does anyone disagree that the East Roman Empire was the most highly developed nation of the Middle-Ages (In Europe and Middle-East) both culturally and militarily?

I disagree completely.

Greek fire is nowhere near as impressive as the agricultural and commercial revolutions the Arabs ushered in.

 

[AKjeldsen]

Does anyone disagree that the East Roman Empire was the most highly developed nation of the Middle-Ages (In Europe and Middle-East) both culturally and militarily?

Yes. They lost. QED.

 

[unmerged(23409)]

Poor poor Byzantium fanboys...

 

[Alexandru H.]

I disagree completely.

Greek fire is nowhere near as impressive as the agricultural and commercial revolutions the Arabs ushered in.

The Arabs weren't an united nation from the 800s onwards... we are speaking strictly about centralized states and empires, like Romania... because if we bring the arab civilization into discussion, we could also introduce the greeks and romans, just for the sake of argument...

 

[AKjeldsen]

The Arabs weren't an united nation from the 800s onwards... we are speaking strictly about centralized states and empires, like Romania... because if we bring the arab civilization into discussion, we could also introduce the greeks and romans, just for the sake of argument...

I'd say the various Arab realms that emerged in the 8th and 9th centuries were about as centralized as any other during the period.

 

[Basileios I]

I disagree completely.

Greek fire is nowhere near as impressive as the agricultural and commercial revolutions the Arabs ushered in.

The Arabs merely took over the Roman system and built a bit on their own, like in the remnant Roman Empire. In western Europe, everything declined however. And the Roman Empire was the commercial power of the age. The Soldius was used all over Europe.

Army wise the Roman Empire was far superiour. Their army was cavalry based but infantry also played an important role as supporter. They used military tactics like those of this Chinese guy, I think Sun Tzu was his name. They were simply the military superpower of the age.

 

[Basileios I]

Yes. They lost. QED.

The Caliphate broke up, too, even 500 years earlier. The East Roman Empire lasted a thousand years. If you count the whole history of the Empire and the Roman Republic as one, this state managed to survive nearly 2000 years.

The ERE only has such a bad reputation because idiots like Gibbon didn't aknowledged the superiority of the East. They described it as dark and decadent , which it wasn't. It was the pinnacle of civilization in the Dark Ages.

 

[Faeelin]

The Arabs weren't an united nation from the 800s onwards... we are speaking strictly about centralized states and empires, like Romania... because if we bring the arab civilization into discussion, we could also introduce the greeks and romans, just for the sake of argument...

Then I prefer the Umayyad Caliphate, which was far more open minded and tolerant than byzantium.

 

[Basileios I]

Then I prefer the Umayyad Caliphate, which was far more open minded and tolerant than byzantium.

Civilization-wise, most of the infrastructure was taken over from the Romans and scholars in the Umayyad Caliphate were still Greek. That changed with the Abbasids, when the Persian element grew stronger.

 

[Osteles]

The ERE only has such a bad reputation because idiots like Gibbon didn't aknowledged the superiority of the East. They described it as dark and decadent , which it wasn't. It was the pinnacle of civilization in the Dark Ages.

sad, but true

 

[AKjeldsen]

The Caliphate broke up, too, even 500 years earlier. The East Roman Empire lasted a thousand years. If you count the whole history of the Empire and the Roman Republic as one, this state managed to survive nearly 2000 years.

The ERE only has such a bad reputation because idiots like Gibbon didn't aknowledged the superiority of the East. They described it as dark and decadent , which it wasn't. It was the pinnacle of civilization in the Dark Ages.

I wouldn't exactly call Gibbon an idiot. He was a product of his time, when history was seen as having a certain purpose, and his work must be seen in that light.

Regardless, I fully agree that he paints a far too bleak picture of the Basileia, but on the other hand, we must be careful not to overcompensate and give it too much credit. It was certainly a highly developed realm, both politically and culturally, but it certainly had peers.

During the early middle ages, the Arab and later Turkish states can easily compete in terms of science and culture, although they may not have been as politically united as the Basileia. And during the high and late middle ages, western and northern Europe catches up with it, seeing political and cultural achievements that easily compare to the East.

 

[Basileios I]

I wouldn't exactly call Gibbon an idiot. He was a product of his time, when history was seen as having a certain purpose, and his work must be seen in that light.

Regardless, I fully agree that he paints a far too bleak picture of the Basileia, but on the other hand, we must be careful not to overcompensate and give it too much credit. It was certainly a highly developed realm, both politically and culturally, but it certainly had peers.

During the early middle ages, the Arab and later Turkish states can easily compete in terms of science and culture, although they may not have been as politically united as the Basileia. And during the high and late middle ages, western and northern Europe catches up with it, seeing political and cultural achievements that easily compare to the East.

Western Europe never caught up until the Renaissance. You have to take the city of Constantinople into account, too. At its high point it was the biggest in Europe and the Middle-East. They had public baths, fresh water, forae, a hippodrome, villas, palaces. It was the most beautiful and magnificent city of the Middle-Ages, also technically (water supply system, drains, walls) far superiour to any western city up until the late Renaissance maybe.

 

[Alexandru H.]

You know what my favourite fantasy of some years was: Nikephor Phocas is not killed in 969, but dies peacefully in 976, after conquering Bulgaria, Syria, Palestine and northern Iraq. The throne comes to Basileus II, that does little fighting (mainly in Italy and Syria), allies himself with the fatimids and begins a era of peace and prosperity throughout the empire (oh, and even breeds some children, damnit! ). No Bardas Skleros revolts, no Samuel uprising.... by the 1200s, the byzantines are deeply involved in their renaissance, that takes over Europe 100 years later by storm... Greek becomes the new lingua franca... by the 1300s, Egypt is reconquered... and a greek navigator manages to reach India, starting the Conquista and the Colonial Roman Empire...

Damn you, history!

 

[AKjeldsen]

Western Europe never caught up until the Renaissance.

That is a very old-fashioned idea, I'm afraid.

They may have had a bit more shit floating around in the streets, but consider the works of such people as Anselm, Peter Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas, the Gothic cathedrals, the epics of the troubadours and the Minnesängers, the music of Hildegard von Bingen and Petrus de Cruce, even the political theory of someone like John of Salisbury. The list goes on, and in my opinion, this all easily measures up to eastern culture.

 

[Basileios I]

That is a very old-fashioned idea, I'm afraid.

They may have had a bit more shit floating around in the streets, but consider the works of such people as Anselm, Peter Abelard, and Thomas Aquinas, the Gothic cathedrals, the epics of the troubadours and the Minnesängers, the music of Hildegard von Bingen and Petrus de Cruce, even the political theory of someone like John of Salisbury. The list goes on, and in my opinion, this all easily measures up to eastern culture.

I don't think so. The East had more and earlier. For example the first humanist, Michael Psellos. And you have to consider that in the East many more people could read or write.

 

[AKjeldsen]

I don't think so. The East had more and earlier. For example the first humanist, Michael Psellos. And you have to consider that in the East many more people could read or write.

You're entitled to that opinion, of course, but most modern scholarship does not exactly agree with you. Personally, I'd say that it's more the quality than the quantity that counts, and on that level there's not any great difference between western and eastern Europe.

For instance, since western medieval Europe managed to construct this:

...to paint this:

...to create this:

...and to write this:

This, then, is the condition of place and time: whatever is enclosed within their boundaries does not escape being characterized by parts, whether the sort of parts its place receives with respect to size, or the sort its time suffers with respect to duration; nor can it in any way be contained as a whole all at once by different places or times. By contrast, if something is in no way constrained by confinement in a place or time, no law of places or times forces it into a multiplicity of parts or prevents it from being present as a whole all at once in several places or times.

...this:

But because the formula of fidelity or fealty ought herein above all else to be kept, there is language in the oath from which we can most conveniently learn a few of the acts which are not permitted. For a thing which is the opposite of something that is necessary is impossible, and by the same process of reasoning a thing which ought to be done is contradicted only by something that is not permitted. The formula of fealty, then, exacts the things which are inserted therein as being the necessary elements of loyalty, and expresses the latter by the words "sound," "safe," "honorable," "advantageous," "easy," "possible." If therefore, we are bound by fealty to anyone, we must not harm his soundness of body, or take from him the military resources upon which his safety depends, or presume to commit any act whereby his honor or advantage is diminished; neither is it lawful that that which is easy for him should be made difficult, or that which is possible impossible. Besides, one who holds a benefice from him whose liege man he is, owes to him aid and counsel in his undertakings; from which fact it is clearer than the sun how much is owed to the God of all, if so much is owed even to those to whom we are bound only by fealty.

...this:

1

To us in olden story / are wonders many told
Of heroes rich in glory, / of trials manifold:
Of joy and festive greeting, / of weeping and of woe,
Of keenest warriors meeting, / shall ye now many a wonder know.

2

There once grew up in Burgundy / a maid of noble birth,
Nor might there be a fairer / than she in all the earth:
Kriemhild hight the maiden, / and grew a dame full fair,
Through whom high thanes a many / to lose their lives soon dooméd were.

3

'Twould well become the highest / to love the winsome maid,
Keen knights did long to win her, / and none but homage paid.
Beauty without measure, / that in sooth had she,
And virtues wherewith many / ladies else adorned might be.

4

Three noble lords did guard her, / great as well in might,
Gunther and Gernot, / each one a worthy knight,
And Giselher their brother, / a hero young and rare.
The lady was their sister / and lived beneath the princes' care.

...and this:

… it should be noted that different ways of knowing (ratio cognoscibilis) give us different sciences. The astronomer and the natural philosopher both conclude that the earth is round, but the astronomer does this through a mathematical middle that is abstracted from matter, whereas the natural philosopher considers a middle lodged in matter. Thus there is nothing to prevent another science from treating in the light of divine revelation what the philosophical disciplines treat as knowable in the light of human reason.

...indicates to me that they had reached a cultural level quite comparable to the East Roman Empire.

 

[Basileios I]

Just to nitpick a little, the Kölner Dom was finished in the 19th century. Trust me I'm from Cologne.

The building started around 1300 as far as I recall and the towers were added in the 19th century. So it took them around 500 years to finish the building.

The east was simply superior to the West, the west caught up when the east was declined. The Nibelungenlied is a nice example of early western literature but they had a lot of such literature in the east, not only fictional text but accounts of history to, for example Prokopios or Anna Kommena, daughter of Alexios, Emperor.

You have to take into account that the ERE had it's high point in the early and high middle ages. Western literature and architecture started to pick up in the late middle ages (1200-14000). There were nice gothic cathedrals too, but in the east they had a functioning infrastructure with hospitals, water supply via aquaeducts, public baths etc. When the crusaders took Constantinople they were stunned by the wealth and beauty of this city. Those stinking crusaders had never seen a roman bath.

 

[AKjeldsen]

Just to nitpick a little, the Kölner Dom was finished in the 19th century. Trust me I'm from Cologne.

The building started around 1300 as far as I recall and the towers were added in the 19th century. So it took them around 500 years to finish the building.

Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot that. o

Here's another one to compensate.

The east was simply superior to the West, the west caught up when the east was declined. The Nibelungenlied is a nice example of early western literature but they had a lot of such literature in the east, not only fictional text but accounts of history to, for example Prokopios or Anna Kommena, daughter of Alexios, Emperor.

You have to take into account that the ERE had it's high point in the early and high middle ages. Western literature and architecture started to pick up in the late middle ages (1200-14000). There were nice gothic cathedrals too, but in the east they had a functioning infrastructure with hospitals, water supply via aquaeducts, public baths etc. When the crusaders took Constantinople they were stunned by the wealth and beauty of this city. Those stinking crusaders had never seen a roman bath.

That's true, although I would put medieval western Europe's high point from 1050-1100 onwards. So in the early middle ages, the Basileia had a bit more culture, and in the high and late middle ages, western Europe had the same amount or a bit more culture. When you calculate in the Muslim world from 700 onwards, I come to the conclusion that the Basileia certainly had a high degree of culture, but not remarkably more than others during the same period. So to answer your original question:

Does anyone disagree that the East Roman Empire was the most highly developed nation of the Middle-Ages (In Europe and Middle-East) both culturally and militarily?

- Yes.

Between them, the East Romans, Muslims and western Europeans all created magnificent works of culture during the middle ages. Debating who created more of them is only relevant if one wants to get into an academically not very interesting pissing contest.

EDIT: BTW, medieval cities did have public bathhouses, and they were used quite often, although they were obviously not up the standards of Constantinople.

 

[Basileios I]

Oh come on, compare that to the Aya Sophia!

Building domes required far more sophisticated architecure than gothic cathedrals. The Rhomaioi were the masters of the dome. The Arabs copied from them (seriously).

I agree that the Arabs were nearly or totally as developed as the Rhomaioi but I have to disagree to you bringing up western Europe. The west had great literature output and nice cathedrals, but it was not, no way, as developed (infrastructure etc.) as the east.

Even the fork was introduced by a Roman princess to the west.

 

[Alexandru H.]

When Princess Anne of Kiev married king Henri I of France in 1051, she was the only one that could sign the marriage documents... not her husband, not the nobles were able to do that...