PDA

View Full Version : Would Europe have been better off if Roman Empire had lived longer?



albanopolis
10-05-13, 18:07
Studies of 6th century Bavarian Graveyards proved that the cause of death was plague. Historians think that 2/3 of Roman Empires population were dead because of plague that lasted 200 years. This was one of the main causes of Roman Empire demise. Since the plague was not spread to Slavic populated areas it brought the explosion of Slavic populations. So plague its one of the causes, that we have South Slavs in places where they do not belong, namely Balkans They brought destruction to long established local cultures and disappearance of nations like Thrace, Panonia and many more. Whole areas of Balkan were filled with barbaric Slavic tribes that never brought anything to the area, than the savagery. What is your hypothetical view, would Balkan been better of without Slavs, Worse off, or the same as it is. Without plague Slavs had no chance of entering Balkans Roman Empire woould have had the manpower to protect its possessions.

ebAmerican
10-05-13, 19:32
Albanopolis "They brought destruction to long established local cultures and disappearance of nations like Thrace, Panonia and many more."

Not true, Albanopolis.

Thracian specifically, but would apply to most Balkan ancient tribes. Excluding the Greeks, because of the rugged territory.

"The ancient languages of these people had already become extinct and their cultural influence was highly reduced due to the repeated barbaric invasions of the Balkans by Celts, Huns, Goths, and Sarmatians, accompanied by hellenization, romanization and later slavicization." wiki

Boss
10-05-13, 20:59
Why don't Slavs belong in the Balkans? which populations belong anywhere apart from, maybe, Africa?

To be honest, I don't even understand what your complaint is. This "They brought destruction to long established local cultures and disappearance of nations like Thrace, Panonia and many more." as ebAmerican said, is false. Centuries of Hellenisation and Romanisation had altered these people to the extreme. Justinian, Constantine (before the Slavic migrations) and so on did not speak "Slavic" as a primary language nor did they speak Thracian or Illyrian or Pannonian. So another problem is your assumption that somehow the Roman Empire losing the western part in the 5th century, meant the end of the Roman Empire. But to quote John Burry, the Roman Empire did not come to an end until 1453.

This "Whole areas of Balkan were filled with barbaric Slavic tribes that never brought anything to the area, than the savagery" is only true if we assume that the Illyrians, the Thracians and so on were the creme de la creme of civilisation. And they weren't.

albanopolis
10-05-13, 23:28
Why don't Slavs belong in the Balkans? which populations belong anywhere apart from, maybe, Africa?

To be honest, I don't even understand what your complaint is. This "They brought destruction to long established local cultures and disappearance of nations like Thrace, Panonia and many more." as ebAmerican said, is false. Centuries of Hellenisation and Romanisation had altered these people to the extreme. Justinian, Constantine (before the Slavic migrations) and so on did not speak "Slavic" as a primary language nor did they speak Thracian or Illyrian or Pannonian. So another problem is your assumption that somehow the Roman Empire losing the western part in the 5th century, meant the end of the Roman Empire. But to quote John Burry, the Roman Empire did not come to an end until 1453.

This "Whole areas of Balkan were filled with barbaric Slavic tribes that never brought anything to the area, than the savagery" is only true if we assume that the Illyrians, the Thracians and so on were the creme de la creme of civilisation. And they weren't.
They were not the creme of civilization but they had absorbed the Roman culture which was very advanced for the time. Local cultures had a lot of local flavors aside Roman. Original home of Slavs are Russian steppes, no? Do you think Slavs belong to Czechoslovakia or Poland? They are German lands, no? Regardless the luck has been on Slavs side, is another matter. I appreciate your comment anyway, we can't change anything now. The question is hypothetical. Would Europe been better off if the empire lasted longer?

oriental
10-05-13, 23:32
Slavery helped Islam to bring down the Roman Empire as it was more tolerant towards slaves.


Though slavery was maintained, the Islamic dispensation enormously improved the position of the Arabian slave, who was now no longer merely a chattel but was also a human being with a certain religious and hence a social status and with certain quasi-legal rights. The early caliphs who ruled the Islamic community after the death of the Prophet also introduced some further reforms of a humanitarian tendency. The enslavement of free Muslims was soon discouraged and eventually prohibited. It was made unlawful for a freeman to sell himself or his children into slavery, and it was no longer permitted for freemen to be enslaved for either debt or crime, as was usual in the Roman world and, despite attempts at reform, in parts of Christian Europe until at least the sixteenth century. It became a fundamental principle of Islamic jurisprudence that the natural condition, and therefore the presumed status, of mankind was freedom, just as the basic rule concerning actions is permittedness: what is not expressly forbidden is permitted; whoever is not known to be a slave is free. This rule was not always strictly observed. Rebels and heretics were sometimes denounced as infidels or, worse, apostates, and reduced to slavery, as were the victims of some Muslim rulers in Africa, who proclaimed jihad against their neighbors, without looking closely at their religious beliefs, so as to provide legal cover for their enslavement. But by and large, and certainly in the central lands of Islam, under regimes of high civilization, the rule was honored, and free subjects of the state, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, were protected from unlawful enslavement.


The professional slave soldier, so characteristic of later Islamic empires, was not present in the earliest Islamic regimes. There were indeed slaves who fought in the army of the Prophet, but they were there as Muslims and as loyal followers, not as slaves or professionals. Most of them were freed for their services, and according to an early narrative, when the Prophet appeared before the walls of the Hijaz town of Ta'if, he sent a crier to announce that any slave who came out and joined him would be free. Abu Muslim, the first military leader of the Abbasid revolution which transformed the Islamic state and society in the mid-eighth century, appealed to slaves to come and join him and offered freedom to those who responded. So many, we are told, answered his call that he gave them a separate camp and formed them into a separate combat unit. During the great expansion of the Arab armies and the accompanying spread of the Islamic faith in the seventh and early eighth centuries, many of the peoples of the conquered countries were captured, enslaved, convcrted, and liberated, and great numbers of these joined the armies of Islam. Iranians in the East, Berbers in the West, reinforced the Arab armies and contributed significantly to the further advance of Islam, eastward into Central Asia and beyond, westward across North Africa and into Spain. These were, however, not slaves but freedmen. Though their status was at first inferior to that of freeborn Arabs, it was certainly not servile, and in time the differences in rank, pay, and status between free and freed soldiers disappeared. As so often, the historiographic tradition foreshortens this development and attributes it to a decree of the Caliph 'Umar, who is said to have ordered his governors to make the privileges and duties of manumitted and converted recruits "among the red people" the same as those of the Arabs. "What is due to these, is due to those; what is due from these, is due from those." The limitation of this concession to the "red people," a term commonly applied by the Arabs to the Iranians and later extended to their Central Asian neighbors, is surely significant. The recruitment of aliens, that is, non-Arabs and often non-Muslims, was by no means restricted to liberated captives, and the distinction between freed subjects, free mercenaries, and bought barbarian slaves is often tenuous.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.asp

The plague also helped bring down the Byzantium Empire.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/plague-helped-bring-down-roman-empire-graveyard-suggests-134835636.html

albanopolis
11-05-13, 00:03
Slavery helped Islam to bring down the Roman Empire as it was more tolerant towards slaves.


Today there was a GOOGLE news. Plague, that lasted from 4th to 6th century, decimated the population of empire. 65% of
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.asp

The plague also helped bring down the Byzantium Empire.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/plague-helped-bring-down-roman-empire-graveyard-suggests-134835636.html
people died of plague. Roman Empire was brought down by this sickness. That is the recorded time of Slavic invasions in Balkans. Do you think Europe would have been better off, worst off, or the same without presence of Slavs. Its an hypothetical question. .............

Boss
11-05-13, 01:48
They were not the creme of civilization but they had absorbed the Roman culture which was very advanced for the time. Local cultures had a lot of local flavors aside Roman. Original home of Slavs are Russian steppes, no? Do you think Slavs belong to Czechoslovakia or Poland? They are German lands, no? Regardless the luck has been on Slavs side, is another matter. I appreciate your comment anyway, we can't change anything now. The question is hypothetical. Would Europe been better off if the empire lasted longer?

I think it's the other way around. As I said, these people were Hellenised and later Romanised. Again, look at the major figures from these areas before the Slavic migrations but after centuries of Romanisation and Hellenisation. They didn't speak the languages you associate with their ethnicities. So again I don't believe it was the Slavs that destroyed these people's customs and languages.

No I don't think Slavs "belong" in the steppes. What's the original home really and why trace it back to Russia? the original home of every human is Africa. But so what?

And longer than what? part of the Roman empire fell in 473. But the Balkan regions were in and out of the Roman Empire for hundreds of years after that. I have no idea what Europe would look like today if the Slavs had never arrived - and neither does anyone else.

albanopolis
11-05-13, 02:11
I think it's the other way around. As I said, these people were Hellenised and later Romanised. Again, look at the major figures from these areas before the Slavic migrations but after centuries of Romanisation and Hellenisation. They didn't speak the languages you associate with their ethnicities. So again I don't believe it was the Slavs that destroyed these people's customs and languages.

No I don't think Slavs "belong" in the steppes. What's the original home really and why trace it back to Russia? the original home of every human is Africa. But so what?

And longer than what? part of the Roman empire fell in 473. But the Balkan regions were in and out of the Roman Empire for hundreds of years after that. I have no idea what Europe would look like today if the Slavs had never arrived - and neither does anyone else.
Look! If you go to Russia, the place Slavs belong there is not a trace a civility. So I think without Slavs Balkans would have been as prosperous as Italy.

zanipolo
11-05-13, 02:33
Look! If you go to Russia, the place Slavs belong there is not a trace a civility. So I think without Slavs Balkans would have been as prosperous as Italy.

so you saying slavs have kept there nomadic gypsy like "genes"?

Yetos
11-05-13, 03:07
Look! If you go to Russia, the place Slavs belong there is not a trace a civility. So I think without Slavs Balkans would have been as prosperous as Italy.

I really don't share that Idea.

historically Slavs gave another 'air' in Balkans and manage to create alternative cultures and civilisations,
from what Balkans suffer is mercenairies, and corruption,

even before Ottomans Balkans was a pool for mercenairies troops,
since you are an Albanian you know about that,
a Balkan man can kill his neighbor for money or religion,
or shut his mouth in criminality just to save his 'fellow' that share same religion or has money,

West Europe learn from religion wars, Balkans did not,
don;t go back, before 100 years, Turkish army in Balkans had 60-70% Balkanic people troops,
who and why? ask your shelf,
Balkans were much prosper, find out what time,

It is not coinsidence that before WW I & II some South Slavic areas were so heavily industrial and prosper that some West European would envy.

tell me, before the 80's would you buy a Dacia or a Zastava car, or a fine Bulgarian parfume to support Balcanic prosper?
Even today Dacia produces cars, tell me how many of us support that Balkanic effort to prosperity?

LeBrok
11-05-13, 04:35
That is the recorded time of Slavic invasions in Balkans. Do you think Europe would have been better off, worst off, or the same without presence of Slavs. Its an hypothetical question. .............
Germanic and Gothic tribes invaded West Roman Empire, Empire collapsed, followed by centuries of dark ages. Do you think Europe would have been better without all the Germanic peoples?
As Boss mentioned East Roman Empire, known as Byzantium, survived another 1000 years, and in vicinity of Slavs.

Do you think Balkans would be better if instead of Albania there was Little Italia in its place?

Boss
11-05-13, 07:37
Germanic and Gothic tribes invaded West Roman Empire, Empire collapsed, followed by centuries of dark ages. Do you think Europe would have been better without all the Germanic peoples?
As Boss mentioned East Roman Empire, known as Byzantium, survived another 1000 years, and in vicinity of Slavs.

Do you think Balkans would be better if instead of Albania there was Little Italia in its place?

How many years did the Slavs hold the Balkans for anyways? was it really that long? I mean, the Ottomans ruled the Balkans for more than 400 years (and I did mention the Romans who reconquered many areas and repopulated them with Roman citizens from the 5th century with Justinian until the fall of Empire). Even if what he says is true (Slavs "destroying" the apparently not-so-magnificent-but-still-better-than-the-Slavs Thraco-Illyrian civilisations), Slavic influence is hardly the only post-Roman influence in the Balkans.

In almost no other region in the world do the people dump their problems on foreign conquest as much as people in the Balkans do.

Jackson
11-05-13, 12:31
Probably not. Would have just been delaying the inevitable. Plus we can't change history, however fascinating it is to speculate.

Nobody1
11-05-13, 12:32
The Bulgarians and Slavs all had very stable and impressive Empires and Kingdoms on the Balkan.
The Osmanic invasion and rule was truly what plunged the Balkans into turmoil.

I personally only view the Byzantine Empire as the titular successor to the Roman Empire. In many ways the Carolingian Empire was the true successor of the old Roman Empire [territory, infrastructure (roads/towns), Latin Alphabet, etc.] and in that sense the Roman Empire lived on.

Dalmat
11-05-13, 12:45
Studies of 6th century Bavarian Graveyards proved that the cause of death was plague. Historians think that 2/3 of Roman Empires population were dead because of plague that lasted 200 years. This was one of the main causes of Roman Empire demise. Since the plague was not spread to Slavic populated areas it brought the explosion of Slavic populations. So plague its one of the causes, that we have South Slavs in places where they do not belong, namely Balkans They brought destruction to long established local cultures and disappearance of nations like Thrace, Panonia and many more. Whole areas of Balkan were filled with barbaric Slavic tribes that never brought anything to the area, than the savagery. What is your hypothetical view, would Balkan been better of without Slavs, Worse off, or the same as it is. Without plague Slavs had no chance of entering Balkans Roman Empire woould have had the manpower to protect its possessions.


This?

.. and coming from an Albanian?

You have got to be kidding me.

Luan
11-05-13, 14:36
The Bulgarians and Slavs all had very stable and impressive Empires and Kingdoms on the Balkan.
The Osmanic invasion and rule was truly what plunged the Balkans into turmoil.

I personally only view the Byzantine Empire as the titular successor to the Roman Empire. In many ways the Carolingian Empire was the true successor of the old Roman Empire [territory, infrastructure (roads/towns), Latin Alphabet, etc.] and in that sense the Roman Empire lived on.
Thats true that the Osmanic invasion was what plunged the balkans, but when it comes to the Albanians the slavs were no diffrent then the ottoman. They both oppresed the Albanians, and Albanian and slav have always been fighting before the Ottoman invasion. The Romans also were no diffrent, they also opressed and had slavs.

LeBrok
11-05-13, 16:07
Thats true that the Osmanic invasion was what plunged the balkans, but when it comes to the Albanians the slavs were no diffrent then the ottoman. They both oppresed the Albanians, and Albanian and slav have always been fighting before the Ottoman invasion. The Romans also were no diffrent, they also opressed and had slavs.
Please use words Slavs and slaves correctly.

Don't you think it is about time to stop hating each other and instead work together for better Balkans?

Boss
11-05-13, 17:44
The Bulgarians and Slavs all had very stable and impressive Empires and Kingdoms on the Balkan.
The Osmanic invasion and rule was truly what plunged the Balkans into turmoil.

I personally only view the Byzantine Empire as the titular successor to the Roman Empire. In many ways the Carolingian Empire was the true successor of the old Roman Empire [territory, infrastructure (roads/towns), Latin Alphabet, etc.] and in that sense the Roman Empire lived on.

What does "the true" successor mean?

Yetos
11-05-13, 17:54
The Bulgarians and Slavs all had very stable and impressive Empires and Kingdoms on the Balkan.
The Osmanic invasion and rule was truly what plunged the Balkans into turmoil.

I personally only view the Byzantine Empire as the titular successor to the Roman Empire. In many ways the Carolingian Empire was the true successor of the old Roman Empire [territory, infrastructure (roads/towns), Latin Alphabet, etc.] and in that sense the Roman Empire lived on.

I don't like byzantine for other reasons,. but words like Romania Romylia, Aromani,
and the Vlach existance and the Imperial CODEXes show clear that byzantine was bilingual and after crusaders the Greek part took the 'head'

Yetos
11-05-13, 17:58
Thats true that the Osmanic invasion was what plunged the balkans, but when it comes to the Albanians the slavs were no diffrent then the ottoman. They both oppresed the Albanians, and Albanian and slav have always been fighting before the Ottoman invasion. The Romans also were no diffrent, they also opressed and had slavs.

Albanians allied with Slavs,
remember Epirus despotate against Serbo-Albanians and Normands,
Albanians were allies with Slavs,
remember Kastrioti enthrone time names and consultats,

Nobody1
11-05-13, 18:38
What does "the true" successor mean?

In comparison to the Byzantine Empire, the Carolingian Empire resembled more the Old Roman Empire.
Needless to say that the Roman Church (Pope) had a far greater influence on the Franks (Baptism of Clovis, Coronation of Charlemagne) than on the Byzantines.
With Charlemagne's coronation on Christmas day 800AD in Rome; he held the official title Karolus serenissimus Augustus a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum gubernans imperium

the territory that was united during the Carolingian dynasty also revamped the old Roman infrastructure (roads, trade routes, towns, etc.)

There were two great Empires in early medieval Europe the Byzantine and the Carolingian, to me the Carolingian is far more rooted in character and structure to the old Roman Empire than the Byzantine.


I don't like byzantine for other reasons,. but words like Romania Romylia, Aromani, and the Vlach existance and the Imperial CODEXes show clear that byzantine was bilingual and after crusaders the Greek part took the 'head'

Of course, the Byzantine Empire was called the East Roman Empire and had abundance of old Roman citizens (Romanics); Thats why i said only titular the Byzantine Empire was the successor.

Nobody1
11-05-13, 19:10
Thats true that the Osmanic invasion was what plunged the balkans, but when it comes to the Albanians the slavs were no diffrent then the ottoman. They both oppresed the Albanians, and Albanian and slav have always been fighting before the Ottoman invasion. The Romans also were no diffrent, they also opressed and had slavs.

The Romans fought the famous Illyrian pirates (Queen Teuta), and than opressed Illyria like they opresed other conquered territory (nothing special).

The Slavs were only in the Byzantine army, never in the old Roman army.
Jordanes and Prokopius [Byzantine Historians] mention the Slavs living between Vistula, Dniester and Dnieper (6th cen AD) and record Slavic mercenaries in the Byzantine army during the Gothic war in Italy.

Slavs on the Balkans are recorded (def.) by Paul the Deacon during the reign of Agilulf (590-616). If the Slavs migrated along with the Avars is not known, but it is recorded that they were peoples among the Avar Khaganate.

Albania was a very important part of the Byzantine Empire, but the Battle of Dyrrhachium (Durrës) in 1081 was a massive defeat for the Byzantines against the Normannic Duchy of Apulia.

Dalmat
11-05-13, 21:29
original poster has issues

Albania is worst country in Europe, least developed, and with probably most primitive people.
He just wants excuse, but the truth is they are in shit situation purely because of their own incompetence

Dalmat
11-05-13, 21:39
Thats true that the Osmanic invasion was what plunged the balkans, but when it comes to the Albanians the slavs were no diffrent then the ottoman. They both oppresed the Albanians, and Albanian and slav have always been fighting before the Ottoman invasion. The Romans also were no diffrent, they also opressed and had slavs.


Šiptars are mentioned first in 12 century, officially you didnt exist in Balkans before that.
No Roman, Greek, or anybody mentioned anything about Šiptars before that, or even anything similar even those who were writing about people of Balkans.

Šiptars only fought us in a service of Ottomans

nordicwarbler
12-05-13, 04:34
Hmm, as an American I can say that I think I'm missing something concerning the deep divides in the Balkans. Nothing I've read fully explains the animosity in this area.

On a side note... regarding Nobody1's comments on the Carolingian Empire, has anyone read the article about how the Norse brutally attacked the monks in Ireland to send a message to the Carolingians? They saw that the Carolingians were using the Church as a tool in the eventual invasion of the Northern territories.

Unfortunately I'm not a great linker... anyone else read this article? Very interesting.

P.S. I saw that Albanopolis got banned-- what happened?!

kamani
12-05-13, 05:22
P.S. I saw that Albanopolis got banned-- what happened?!
good question, why was he the only one to get banned?! There is people, even on this thread, that have used the same language...

LeBrok
12-05-13, 07:30
good question, why was he the only one to get banned?! There is people, even on this thread, that have used the same language...
Steady collection of infractions. Banned for 10 days.

Boss
12-05-13, 13:06
In comparison to the Byzantine Empire, the Carolingian Empire resembled more the Old Roman Empire.
Needless to say that the Roman Church (Pope) had a far greater influence on the Franks (Baptism of Clovis, Coronation of Charlemagne) than on the Byzantines.
With Charlemagne's coronation on Christmas day 800AD in Rome; he held the official title Karolus serenissimus Augustus a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum gubernans imperium

the territory that was united during the Carolingian dynasty also revamped the old Roman infrastructure (roads, trade routes, towns, etc.)

There were two great Empires in early medieval Europe the Byzantine and the Carolingian, to me the Carolingian is far more rooted in character and structure to the old Roman Empire than the Byzantine.



Of course, the Byzantine Empire was called the East Roman Empire and had abundance of old Roman citizens (Romanics); Thats why i said only titular the Byzantine Empire was the successor.

There was no Roman Church before 1054. The Church was one back then and everyone belonged in it - East and West. Note too that Rome was not the capital of the Empire and had not been the capital since the days of Constantine. That is, half a millennium before Charlemagne decided that he was a Roman (which he didn't really, as far as I know, he was not particularly fond of Roman customs and his descendants always mocked the ceremonial court of the "Byzantines" (not to mention their clothing, their eating habits and so on) which was, like the entire administrative system of the Empire, directly inherited from the ancient Romans)

I am also not sure why the roads and towns in the West give a greater claim to the Franks. The towns in the South-East were always extremely important Roman centers - Alexandria, Ephesus, Syracuse, Antioch, Pergamum and many others I am missing. For centuries, Romans went to Athens and other Greek cities to get an education. The trade routes in the East, both sea and road (but especially sea) were so important for ancient Rome that I just don't even see what kind of far greater importance did the Franco-German towns had that you're willing to grant "true Roman-ness" to the Franks but not to the "Byzantines". The Roman trade and road system in the East never collapsed so it was never in need of resuscitation.

And regarding titles: I know what Charlemagne's title was. Nobody disputes that. But it's not really helpful is it? I mean, imagine you are discussing with a Korean and you are disputing the claim that North Korea is either democratic or republican. Surely him saying to you "look, the country's official name is the Democratic Republic of North Korea!", would settle nothing.

Alexandros
12-05-13, 13:38
No! Europe (as any other place in the world) would have been better (and is better) if nations are ruled by their own ethnicity and are not occupied by huge empires! This is fundamental to democracy and all human rights. People decide,through elections, who their leader is and not someone else thousands of kilometers away decides about my future. Some people are really proud of the big empires of our ancestors and I cannot argue against that, but that era is long gone now..

Nobody1
12-05-13, 21:20
There was no Roman Church before 1054. The Church was one back then and everyone belonged in it - East and West. Note too that Rome was not the capital of the Empire and had not been the capital since the days of Constantine. That is, half a millennium before Charlemagne decided that he was a Roman (which he didn't really, as far as I know, he was not particularly fond of Roman customs and his descendants always mocked the ceremonial court of the "Byzantines" (not to mention their clothing, their eating habits and so on) which was, like the entire administrative system of the Empire, directly inherited from the ancient Romans)

I am also not sure why the roads and towns in the West give a greater claim to the Franks. The towns in the South-East were always extremely important Roman centers - Alexandria, Ephesus, Syracuse, Antioch, Pergamum and many others I am missing. For centuries, Romans went to Athens and other Greek cities to get an education. The trade routes in the East, both sea and road (but especially sea) were so important for ancient Rome that I just don't even see what kind of far greater importance did the Franco-German towns had that you're willing to grant "true Roman-ness" to the Franks but not to the "Byzantines". The Roman trade and road system in the East never collapsed so it was never in need of resuscitation.

And regarding titles: I know what Charlemagne's title was. Nobody disputes that. But it's not really helpful is it? I mean, imagine you are discussing with a Korean and you are disputing the claim that North Korea is either democratic or republican. Surely him saying to you "look, the country's official name is the Democratic Republic of North Korea!", would settle nothing.

i have never denied that the Byzantine Empire was the titular (granted by right) successor; which includes all the towns and roads and exclusive trade routes of the Eastern half of the Classical Roman Empire.
But it declined by the centuries;

there is nothing Roman about the Byzantine Empire
The Greco-Roman knowledge was in the hands of the Muslims, no longer the Byzantines
The Military power was in the hands of the Germanic Franks
it was also these Franks that united much of the Old Western territory again and revamped its Roman infrastructure again; Byzantium didnt contribute to any of that in fact in largely contributed in the fall of the Western half to begin with.

So what is Roman about the Byzantine Empire apart from its titular rights? What Roman legacy was kept alive or restored?

Just inform yourself about the Carolingian Renaissance; with out it Europe would have been centuries behind.

Boss
13-05-13, 00:04
i have never denied that the Byzantine Empire was the titular (granted by right) successor; which includes all the towns and roads and exclusive trade routes of the Eastern half of the Classical Roman Empire.
But it declined by the centuries;

there is nothing Roman about the Byzantine Empire
The Greco-Roman knowledge was in the hands of the Muslims, no longer the Byzantines
The Military power was in the hands of the Germanic Franks
it was also these Franks that united much of the Old Western territory again and revamped its Roman infrastructure again; Byzantium didnt contribute to any of that in fact in largely contributed in the fall of the Western half to begin with.

So what is Roman about the Byzantine Empire apart from its titular rights? What Roman legacy was kept alive or restored?

Just inform yourself about the Carolingian Renaissance; with out it Europe would have been centuries behind.

This: "The Greco-Roman knowledge was in the hands of the Muslims, no longer the Byzantines" is as false as everything else. The Muslims called "Byzantine" professors to teach in their lands not the other way around. The Muslims translated basically Aristotle and (some) Plato (& they had gotten the original texts from the "Byzantines" themselves) but knew nothing about Herodotus, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Homer, Demosthenes and the rest of the literary pantheon. Some of the top Classical scholars during and before the Renaissance were "Byzantines". Dante, Petrarch & Boccaccio had "Byzantine" scholars (Barlaam, Chrysoloras, Plethon) teaching them ancient literature.

I did mention what was Roman about the Empire but you choose to downplay it and instead choose to focus on the road system in the West as though that alone is such a major part so as to downplay anything that existed in the East. Again, no mention of the towns and networks that existed there.

I didn't mention the titles anywhere - you did. The ceremonies, military tactics, clothing, eating habits are not "titles". They are part of a culture, i.e. the development of Roman culture. It's quite irrelevant who held the military power and even if it was relevant I doubt it was the Franks - depending on what period you're talking about. But again all this is irrelevant to establishing Roman-ness. When Rome fell, the Empire had no military power. To deny that they were "true" Romans because they weren't more powerful than the Goths is ridiculous.

I haven't the faintest idea which modern historian would deny that what you call the "Byzantines Empire was, at least up until the fourth Crusade, the Medieval Roman Empire. I take my cue from John Bury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Bury) (and virtually all modern English historians).

Nobody1
13-05-13, 00:45
This: "The Greco-Roman knowledge was in the hands of the Muslims, no longer the Byzantines" is as false as everything else. The Muslims called "Byzantine" professors to teach in their lands not the other way around. The Muslims translated basically Aristotle and (some) Plato (& they had gotten the original texts from the "Byzantines" themselves) but knew nothing about Herodotus, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Homer, Demosthenes and the rest of the literary pantheon. Some of the top Classical scholars during and before the Renaissance were "Byzantines". Dante, Petrarch & Boccaccio had "Byzantine" scholars (Barlaam, Chrysoloras, Plethon) teaching them ancient literature.

Barlaam a Byzantine? = stretch of the imagination / brush up on Normannic History and the Staufer Dynasty

Chrysoloras and Plethon were born when Dante was already dead; great influence! Dante must have made a great student.
and Dante's influence was Virgil.

You might want to look up Gerard of Cremona; for restoring the ancient knowledge. and ever heard of Thomas of Aquin?

since you are totally wrong about Byzantine "scholars" teaching Dante -post mortem; i have my doubts about the Arabs inviting Byzantine scholars;

Much rather with the conquest of Alexandria and Damaskus the knowledge & scholars were in Muslim hands.


I haven't the faintest idea which modern historian would deny that what you call the "Byzantines Empire was, at least up until the fourth Crusade, the Medieval Roman Empire. I take my cue from John Bury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Bury) (and virtually all modern English historians).

Im not denying it either (never have), and John Bagnell Bury is a great ref.; perfectly describes the demise of Byzantium.

as i have written earlier; [I]post #21
There were two great Empires in early medieval Europe the Byzantine and the Carolingian,
and to me personally the Carolingian is far more rooted in character and structure to the old Roman Empire than the Byzantine.
Within the Carolingian Renaissance this root becomes very clear, even the Carolingian law was heavily based on the Roman law. Dont think i have to mention the infrastructure again.

nordicwarbler
13-05-13, 01:23
Nobody1, what did you think about the article I mentioned claiming the Vikings attacked monks in Ireland to send Carolingians a message?

Nobody1
13-05-13, 01:49
Nobody1, what did you think about the article I mentioned claiming the Vikings attacked monks in Ireland to send Carolingians a message?

I would def. have to read the Article, sounds very interesting;
seems (the massacre of monks) has a religious backround so it could have had something to do with the Asselt siege and the resulting baptism.
In the late Carolingian period, the Heathen Norsemen and the Christian Franks clashed repeatedly.
Do you have the specific date of the massacre?

Boss
13-05-13, 02:00
Barlaam a Byzantine? = stretch of the imagination / brush up on Normannic History and the Staufer Dynasty

Chrysoloras and Plethon were born when Dante was already dead; great influence! Dante must have made a great student.
and Dante's influence was Virgil.

You might want to look up Gerard of Cremona; for restoring the ancient knowledge. and ever heard of Thomas of Aquin?

since you are totally wrong about Byzantine "scholars" teaching Dante -post mortem; i have my doubts about the Arabs inviting Byzantine scholars;

Much rather with the conquest of Alexandria and Damaskus the knowledge & scholars were in Muslim hands.



Im not denying it either (never have), and John Bagnell Bury is a great ref.; perfectly describes the demise of Byzantium.

as i have written earlier; [I]post #21
There were two great Empires in early medieval Europe the Byzantine and the Carolingian,
and to me personally the Carolingian is far more rooted in character and structure to the old Roman Empire than the Byzantine.
Within the Carolingian Renaissance this root becomes very clear, even the Carolingian law was heavily based on the Roman law. Dont think i have to mention the infrastructure again.

Surely if you're gonna refer to Law, the Justinian code is sufficient to establish the Roman-ness of the "Byzantines". It's was only one of the prime examples of the continuation of ancient Rome in the East.

Barlaam was not Norman though (and in any case he was certainly not a Frank). His family was Byzantine (or else he wouldn't have converted to the Roman Church after his dispute with Palamas) and his career was for the most part in Constantinople and Mount Athos.

Aquinas (in the Kingdom of Sicily) again was not a Frank or a Carolignian either so once more it's irrelevant. The Normans in Siciliy did not have any Roman pretensions - unlike the Carolignian Franks you're defending here. Remember the claim - the Carolignians are the "true" Romans. Not the English or the Spaniards or the Sicilians. But no doubt Aquinas was one of the greatest if not the greatest Medieval philosopher. Agreed (and note that I never denied that the Normans in Sicily were not the most enlightened place in the West - it certainly was but I see no reason to extend that to the Franks)

I should've written Dante's successors, not Dante himself (I don't think he knew Greek at all). Petrach though was taught by Barlaam (unsuccessfully) and Boccaccio by Leontius (again, Leontius's background was "Byzantine"). So yeah.

Gerard was a translator of Arab-Latin works. I am talking about Greek-Latin translators that revived Greek learning in the West and you'll find dozens of them in the "Byzantine" Empire (I mentioned some but there are far more numerous than Gerard ofc). Gerard did not, once again, translate Aeschylus or Sophocles or Eurpidies or any of the great dramatists (cos again the Arabs knew nothing about them) nor Herodotus or Homer. So yeah, half the pantheon is missing here. And note that some "Byzantines" had to re-translate Gerard's works from Greek to Latin - e.g. George of Trebizond.

As for the Muslims inviting Byzantines, don't take my word for it:

"In spite of continuous warfare, there were tight commerical and cultural relations between Byzantium and the Muslim world...Greek philosophical, medical and scientific works were transalted into Arabic; for example, the compendium of the seventh-century writer Paul of Aegina (Byzantine), was translated into Arabic and greatly influenced Arabic medicine. Byzantine scholars like Leo the Mathetmatician (9th century were invited to the Arab court"

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PvlthkbFU1UC&pg=PA530&lpg=PA530&dq=Byzantine+scholar+invited+Arabs&source=bl&ots=Nj8M11oL4T&sig=PbejW6Mmp5OIqX1fvumO_Edi6Tk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oiaQUbiDMoXEPJTBgdgC&ved=0CHAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Byzantine%20scholar%20invited%20Arabs&f=false

And yet, John Bury never claimed that the "Byzantines" were not as Roman as the Carolignians and in his introduction to his book the "Late Roman Empire", he makes that clear. Indeed he takes offense to considering the "Byzantine" Empire anything else other than the Roman Empire (he didn't even like it when it was being called the "Eastern" Roman Empire).

Nobody1
13-05-13, 03:23
Surely if you're gonna refer to Law, the Justinian code is sufficient to establish the Roman-ness of the "Byzantines". It's was only one of the prime examples of the continuation of ancient Rome in the East. And yet, John Bury never claimed that the "Byzantines" were not as Roman as the Carolignians and in his introduction to his book the "Late Roman Empire", he makes that clear. Indeed he takes offense to considering the "Byzantine" Empire anything else other than the Roman Empire (he didn't even like it when it was being called the "Eastern" Roman Empire).

The East (Byzantine) Empire was de facto a Roman Empire; ever since the Classical Empire was split after Theodosius death. I never claimed otherwise, and no one has described the history and demise of this empire better than J B Bury.
The Carolingian Empire on the other hand was never de facto a Roman Empire, it was undoubtedly Germanic; but it rose from the Roman ruins of the old Empire and not only incorporated but upheld its ideals.
And its in the Carolingian tradition that the Roman legacy lived on, whereas in the Byzantine tradition it further crumbled. Once again, no one has described its demise better than J B Bury.


"In spite of continuous warfare, there were tight commerical and cultural relations between Byzantium and the Muslim world...Greek philosophical, medical and scientific works were transalted into Arabic; for example, the compendium of the seventh-century writer Paul of Aegina (Byzantine), was translated into Arabic and greatly influenced Arabic medicine. Byzantine scholars like Leo the Mathetmatician (9th century were invited to the Arab court"

The story ends with Leo not going to the Arab court. So he never influenced them.
The vast knowledge the Muslims acquired was by their conquests. Not by Byzantine scholars that never showed up.

Syed Akheel Ahmed - Islam and Scientific Enterprise (2008)
The Arabs who, under the banner of Islam, conquered both Alexandria and Jundishapur and thus gained mastery over the main centres of science and medicine,

Boss
13-05-13, 03:46
The East (Byzantine) Empire was de facto a Roman Empire; ever since the Classical Empire was split after Theodosius death. I never claimed otherwise, and no one has described the history and demise of this empire better than J B Bury.
The Carolingian Empire on the other hand was never de facto a Roman Empire, it was undoubtedly Germanic; but it rose from the Roman ruins of the old Empire and not only incorporated but upheld its ideals.
And its in the Carolingian tradition that the Roman legacy lived on, whereas in the Byzantine tradition it further crumbled. Once again, no one has described its demise better than J B Bury.



The story ends with Leo not going to the Arab court. So he never influenced them.
The vast knowledge the Muslims acquired was by their conquests. Not by Byzantine scholars that never showed up.

Syed Akheel Ahmed - Islam and Scientific Enterprise (2008)
The Arabs who, under the banner of Islam, conquered both Alexandria and Jundishapur and thus gained mastery over the main centres of science and medicine,

I fail to see how the decline and fall of the Roman Empire in the East means they weren't "true" Romans (still dont even know what this means btw). Not getting the point at all. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire has nothing to do with whether the Easterners were "true" Romans (neither does the decline and fall of the Western Empire means they weren't either). And it's bizzare to claim that the "Byzantine" legacy did not live on - look at the art in the Carolignian Empire itself! look at the Palatine Chapel itself. Or indeed, the architecture in Norman Sicily, Ravenna and all former colonies. No "Byzantine" legacy? look at early Italian art! Look at the damn currency the Franks themselves used during the early days of their Frankish Empire! And later, of course the Renaissance took the shape it did in no small part due to eastern scholars.

The "Byzantines" declined and lost the Empire to the Ottomans in the same way the ancient Western Romans declined and lost the Empire to the Germanic tribes. None of that however means anything as far as "Roman-ness" is concerned.

And ofc I never said that Leo or the Byzantines in general influenced them in this way (although if you read the whole bit, it's quite clear they were influenced in many respects). If you re-read what I wrote, was that Muslims called Byzantine professors to teach there. You on the other hand claimed that the Muslims not the Byzantines held Greco-Roman knowledge. So my question was why then did the Muslims call Byzantine scholars into their courts (regardless of whether the "Byzantines" decided to go) and why were they translating Byzantine works like the one I cited?

Yetos
13-05-13, 04:06
i have never denied that the Byzantine Empire was the titular (granted by right) successor; which includes all the towns and roads and exclusive trade routes of the Eastern half of the Classical Roman Empire.
But it declined by the centuries;

there is nothing Roman about the Byzantine Empire
The Greco-Roman knowledge was in the hands of the Muslims, no longer the Byzantines
The Military power was in the hands of the Germanic Franks
it was also these Franks that united much of the Old Western territory again and revamped its Roman infrastructure again; Byzantium didnt contribute to any of that in fact in largely contributed in the fall of the Western half to begin with.

So what is Roman about the Byzantine Empire apart from its titular rights? What Roman legacy was kept alive or restored?

Just inform yourself about the Carolingian Renaissance; with out it Europe would have been centuries behind.

Byzantine Empire had 2 declines,

1 with Bulgarian expand until Βασιλειος emperor (Makedonian or Armenian to others)
Until that time was fully Roman empire, with all offcial writen in Latin, with all genarals come from old Roman army, emeprors come from Flavians and their legion Flavia Felix, effort to restore the one Roman empire by Justinianus, massacres of the pagans as in the west, etc etc.
Byzantine started to transform to Greek/Thracian after that Dynasty, and become tottaly Greek after 1204 when Crusaders sacked Nova Roma,
Roman empire was not only in the West, and was not only in the lands that later follow Rome's Patriarch (Pope)
remember Carlomagne's effort to marry a Byzantine nobility,
after the sack of Rome by Huns there was no Roman empire, the reestablish of Roman empire was mostly an effort of church, that is why named Holy, which empire is Holy?
just ask your shelf how can be an empire Holy, Roman, and Germanic,!!!!!

The strange is that even today in Turkey the ex-Byzantines are named as Rum, Rumlar etc

the disease of Byzantine is that many times some clerics were so strong that did allow science to run due to some dogmas,
what west suffer from inguisition later, somehow existed also in Byzantines and that many times stop search and science and some schools, so scientists sometiomes decide to change camp in order to find money and open field to continue their work,

FBS
13-05-13, 10:46
Šiptars are mentioned first in 12 century, officially you didnt exist in Balkans before that.
No Roman, Greek, or anybody mentioned anything about Šiptars before that, or even anything similar even those who were writing about people of Balkans.

Šiptars only fought us in a service of Ottomans

This is a very derogatory post and not based in historical facts.

Nobody1
13-05-13, 18:27
Byzantine started to transform to Greek/Thracian after that Dynasty, and become tottaly Greek after 1204 when Crusaders sacked Nova Roma,

Thats not correct;

Prof. Robert Browning - The Byzantine Empire (1992) [Catholic Uni. of America Press]
Though Greek was the mother tongue of most of the inhabitants of Constantinople and the lingua franca of all of them, the imperial government clung tenaciously to Latin as the language of the state and the mark of its Roman origin. The high officers of state transacted their business in Latin, the army was commanded in Latin, laws were promulgated in Latin. No emperor was more passionately attached to the traditions of Roman universalism than Justinian, the codifier and restorer of Roman law. Yet he was the first emperor to issue the majority of his laws in Greek, the language of the greater part of his subjects. His successors followed his example, and the Latin facade of court and government grew thinner. Finally, about the time of his victory over the Persians, Heraclius dropped the resounding traditional Latin imperial titles, and called himself in official acts and proclamations simply basileus or king......from the end of the reign of Heraclius, the Roman Empire had become Greek in language at all levels -

so the East Roman Empire was already fully Greek by ~ 641 AD; (excluding coinage)


after the sack of Rome by Huns there was no Roman empire,

The Huns never sacked Rome, the Huns stormed and raided Roman Gaul and the Po Valley and were responsible for the mass migration of Visigoths across the Danube into Roman territory; and it was these Visigoths under Alaric that sacked Rome in 410 AD,
but Rome hasnt been the capital since 286 AD to begin with.


the reestablish of Roman empire was mostly an effort of church, that is why named Holy, which empire is Holy? just ask your shelf how can be an empire Holy, Roman, and Germanic,!!!!!

Thats correct, and thats what i meant (without going into full detail about the west east schism), about the Roman church, the Pope and its influence on the Franks (Baptism of Clovis, Donations of Pepin, Coronatian of Charlemgne)


The strange is that even today in Turkey the ex-Byzantines are named as Rum, Rumlar etc

Nothing strange about it,
Ever since the division of the classical Empire in 395 AD [Theodosius splitting the classical empire between his son Arcadius (east) and Honorius (west)]; the eastern half was the East Roman Empire, and the first Turkish (Seljuk) sultanate in Anatolia was called the Sultanate of Rum (Rome).
Emperor Alexius even allied with the Seljuk Turks against the Normans of Roger II.

Grubbe
14-05-13, 17:15
I am a great fan of the Roman empire, especially pre-Christianity - but every empire has it's time. It would have been interesting if the Westroman empire had lasted longer, but history has never seen an everlasting empire, so all is comming to an end eventually. I don't think that the Slavs were worse than Germanic tribes or the Huns, for that matter.