Byzantine thread

[Basileios I]

AKjeldsen,

If you want to see how kewl the Rhomaioi were visit this page:

www.byzantium1200.com

 

[AKjeldsen]

Oh come on, compare that to the Aya Sophia!

Ok. Both are amazing works of architecture that took great skill and a lot of resources to complete. Both are at more or less the same level of technological level, except for the dome - but I would hardly consider the ability to build domes the only factor in determining level of culture. Building a 150m long nave with flying buttresses is no mean feat either, for that matter.

I'd evaluate them as quite comparable feats of medieval architecture. The only difference is that Aya Sophia is 600 years older, and that is remarkable, but since we're discussing the entire medieval period, both should be counted.

BTW, the Gothic architecture is heavily influenced by Arab architecture, especially from North Africa, so you could draw a line more or less from the Agia Sophia to the York Minster - although not an entirely direct one.

 

[Faeelin]

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.

So was Islamic currency; both are found as far afield as Scandinavia and China.

Army wise the Roman Empire was far superiour.

The Muslims took Anatolia, Egypt, the Levant, North Africa, and Sicily from the Romaioi. So, hmm.

 

[Faeelin]

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.

You know, Umayyad Cordoba had paved, lit streets. Why don't you mention that, as well?

Also, bath houses were pretty common in Medieval Europe.

 

[Osteles]

You know, Umayyad Cordoba had paved, lit streets. Why don't you mention that, as well?

Also, bath houses were pretty common in Medieval Europe.

Yes, but Constantinopel had these much earlier. But the Tomanoi stagnated for some reason, and this perhaps was the prime reason for the downfall (altough the taking of the city wasnt very helpfull either )

 

[Faeelin]

Yes, but Constantinopel had these much earlier. But the Tomanoi stagnated for some reason, and this perhaps was the prime reason for the downfall (altough the taking of the city wasnt very helpfull either )

Of course, the Western Empire had them as well; it's just that western europe had to reemerge from the dark ages, while Byzantium's society was relatively constant.

 

[Basileios I]

The Muslims took Anatolia, Egypt, the Levant, North Africa, and Sicily from the Romaioi. So, hmm.

The Arabs never took Antatolia. The Empire was strong. It was under a nearly constant two-front war and never collapsed (Slavs, Avars, Bulgars in the west). The reason why the Arab conquest of Syria and Egypt was so easy was because the population there was fairly hostile to the Roman Empire because of its religious policies and they welcomed the Arabs as liberators, plus the Empire was bankrupt and exhausted by a war with Persia before that nearly put an end to the Romans forever.

 

[Basileios I]

Of course, the Western Empire had them as well; it's just that western europe had to reemerge from the dark ages, while Byzantium's society was relatively constant.

The Western Empire declined and fell. The East did not. And western Europe did not reach the standard in living quality and architecture they had in Roman times until the Renaissance. In the East that was not the case. In the East all the standards were kept.

 

[Basileios I]

You know, Umayyad Cordoba had paved, lit streets. Why don't you mention that, as well?

Also, bath houses were pretty common in Medieval Europe.

Constantinople also had paved, lit streets. And the bath houses in Medieval Europe were by far not as sophisticated as the Roman Bath houses in Constantinople. The Roman bath houses were heated, had several basins with colder and warmer water and the water came via the aquaeducts. In Medieval Europe the water supply broke down because no one maintained the aquaeducts after the fall of Imperial authority.


And for the Caliphate of Cordoba being tolerant, a hundred years later or so in the high Middle-Ages (1100) the Almohads came to power there and they were more brutal than the Romans in religious policies.

 

[Faeelin]

The Arabs never took Antatolia.

The Turks, who were Muslim, did. And since it was not an Arab culture, but an Islamic one.

The reason why the Arab conquest of Syria and Egypt was so easy was because the population there was fairly hostile to the Roman Empire because of its religious policies and they welcomed the Arabs as liberators, plus the Empire was bankrupt and exhausted by a war with Persia before that nearly put an end to the Romans forever.

The fact that the Byzantines were so oppressive that their fellow Christians preferred the rule of a new faith out of the deserts is not, IMO, a mark in their favor.

 

[Basileios I]

The Turks, who were Muslim, did. And since it was not an Arab culture, but an Islamic one.



The fact that the Byzantines were so oppressive that their fellow Christians preferred the rule of a new faith out of the deserts is not, IMO, a mark in their favor.

Anatolia fell to the Turks because the Empire was in a state of decay and feudalization. After Basileios II all the other Emperors were big losers. And the Western Roman Empire also crumbled under the storm of the barbarian hordes. That doesn't make the hordes superior or their armies better.
It is magnificent how long the Empire held out this nearly constant two-front warfare and even managed to expand again and beat both Arabs and Bulgars.

The fact that the Byzantines were so oppressive has nothing to do with technical development. They were simply, the best.

The Arabs were very close though.

 

[unmerged(22461)]

I'd add that most of the support in the parts that fell quickly to the Arab invasion were do to religious persecution of the fairly major local branch of Christianity. Similar things occured with a minor sect in Anatolia later with the Turks' invasion.

As with all things related to Christianity (schism, persecution, etc.), I blame Constantine the Great as being the root cause, the man just couldn't leave well enough alone and accept that some of his subjects didn't follow his particular take on Chirstianity and happily take thier tax money.

 

[AKjeldsen]

The fact that the Byzantines were so oppressive has nothing to do with technical development. They were simply, the best.

They still lost.

 

[Osteles]

. After Basileios II all the other Emperors were big losers. .

I beg to differ, the last one (Konstantinos Dragases) was a pretty good emperor considering his resources. IIRC he even managed to briefly reconquer Athens and some other cities. But of course, the Ottomans could not let this pass, and quickly took possesion of his conquest.

 

[Basileios I]

I beg to differ, the last one (Konstantinos Dragases) was a pretty good emperor considering his resources. IIRC he even managed to briefly reconquer Athens and some other cities. But of course, the Ottomans could not let this pass, and quickly took possesion of his conquest.

No, I mean his immediate followers. After Makinzert, when the Komnenoi gained power, they had some able emperors again.

Sorry for the unclear post.

 

[Basileios I]

They still lost.

The Arabs even earlier.

 

[unmerged(52444)]

YeahMost Arab nations were ruled by the caliphs, the prophets of Muhammed. By the crusades however, the caliphates were ruled by sultans and such. Like the Abbasid Caliphate, by that time it was a rump state of the Seljuks.

Further more, why are you guys calling them Romans. Very true, they are. But there Byzantines. There are two reasons for that, first of all as we all now, the Constantinople was built by Emperor Constantine on the site of Byzantinum, purely for the source of milatary protection and future wealth, since Byzantium was a route on silk road. Second of all the term Byzantine refers to there government, Elective Law (when the emperor needed a three-fold vote by the army, clergy, and the nobles to offically become emperor). However there was much corruption in this law. Thats why old folks (like my grandma) call governments byzantine, refering to the corruption. The byzantines are a great people, but they weren't perfect. And further prove my point, i went to dictionary.com and looked it up


Of or relating to the ancient city of Byzantium.
Of or relating to the Byzantine Empire.
Of or belonging to the style of architecture developed from the fifth century A.D. in the Byzantine Empire, characterized especially by a central dome resting on a cube formed by four round arches and their pendentives and by the extensive use of surface decoration, especially veined marble panels, low relief carving, and colored glass mosaics.
Of the painting and decorative style developed in the Byzantine Empire, characterized by formality of design, frontal stylized presentation of figures, rich use of color, especially gold, and generally religious subject matter.

Of the Eastern Orthodox Church or the rites performed in it.
Of a Uniat church that maintains the worship of the Eastern Orthodox Church or the rites performed in it.
often byzantine
Of, relating to, or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious: “a fine hand for Byzantine deals and cozy arrangements” (New York).
Highly complicated; intricate and involved: a bill to simplify the byzantine tax structure.

adj 1: of or relating to the Eastern Orthodox Church or the rites performed in it; "Byzantine monks"; "Byzantine rites" [syn: Byzantine] 2: of or relating to or characteristic of the Byzantine Empire or the ancient city of Byzantium [syn: Byzantine] 3: highly involved or intricate; "the Byzantine tax structure"; "convoluted legal language"; "convoluted reasoning"; "intricate needlework"; "an intricate labyrinth of refined phraseology"; "the plot was too involved"; "a knotty problem"; "got his way by labyrinthine maneuvering"; "Oh, what a tangled web we weave"- Sir Walter Scott; "tortuous legal procedures"; "tortuous negotiations lasting for months" [syn: Byzantine, convoluted, intricate, involved, knotty, labyrinthine, tangled, tortuous] 4: characterized by elaborate scheming and intrigue; devious; "Byzantine methods for holding on to his chairmanship"; "a fine hand for Byzantine deals and cozy arrangements" [syn: Byzantine] n : a native or inhabitant of Byzantium or of the Byzantine Empire [syn: Byzantine]

<jargon, architecture> A term describing any system that has
so many labyrinthine internal interconnections that it would
be impossible to simplify by separation into loosely coupled
or linked components.

The city of Byzantium, later renamed Constantinople and then
Istanbul, and the Byzantine Empire were vitiated by a
bureaucratic overelaboration bordering on lunacy: quadruple
banked agencies, dozens or even scores of superfluous levels
and officials with high flown titles unrelated to their actual
function, if any.

Access to the Emperor and his council was controlled by
powerful and inscrutable eunuchs and by rival sports factions.

(I love history )

 

[Faeelin]

Anatolia fell to the Turks because the Empire was in a state of decay and feudalization. After Basileios II all the other Emperors were big losers. And the Western Roman Empire also crumbled under the storm of the barbarian hordes. That doesn't make the hordes superior or their armies better.

Except the Turks weren't barbarians; they were sophisticated enough to turn the Abbasid Caliphs into their puppets.

 

[Faeelin]

The Arabs even earlier.

Islam is still around. Is Byzantine society?

 

[AKjeldsen]

... Further more, why are you guys calling them Romans. Very true, they are. But there Byzantines. ...

Well, there are basically two reasons why we tend to avoid the word "Byzantine". Partly, it is because the word is a later invention from the 16th century - the people it refers to would only have called themselves Romans, so unless there are reasons not to, it's most proper to use that word for them

But the more important reason is that since the 18th century, the word has developed a derogatory meaning, as the dictionary you quote mentions: characterized by elaborate scheming and intrigue; devious. While East Roman society certainly had its share of political intrigue going on, this tends to be exaggerated to an unhistorical degree, and the usual connotations of Byzantine help to reinforce this image.

As a similar case, I always use the term early middle ages instead of dark ages for much the same reason.