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

[Roma_Victrix]

For starters there wasn't really a separation between Roman and East Roman. They were continuous. So in effect the topic should read "Did the later Romans never achieve anything?" Rephrasing the question pretty much answers it too. The latter Romans built on a tradition that went back to the dawn of Roman history. They didn't see themselves as different or separate. For example - As mentioned the Corpus Juris - work on civil law done under Justinian built on a thousand years of Roman and Greek legal thought. It was a new Byzantine document made from a reordering and organising of an unbroken legal tradition that went back centuries. It was assembled very quickly in the 6th century and without it the legal systems of modern countries as different as Mexico, Turkey and China wouldn't exist in the forms they do. It was probably one of the most influential collections of work of any sort in history. Certainly, it is probably the most influential assemblage of written work that isn't wholly religious in nature. I'm struggling to think of any other body of work that was important to the development of civilisation. Maybe the US constitution or the Magna Carta?

Thank you for noticing my post, and for noticing me too, Senpai.


The Corpus Juris Civilis was quite honestly the first thing that came to my mind when I made my post, followed swiftly by Greek fire. And those two were off the top of my head. I did a little digging and immediately remembered Gemistus Pletho, in addition to learning about the other Byzantine-Greek humanists partially responsible for the Italian Renaissance (there are many that I didn't even bother to list). In terms of military tech and architecture, the Byzantines made fine contributions to the world. They weren't as impressive as the earlier Romans or the Classical and Hellenistic Greeks for that matter, but they were certainly one of the most advanced societies on Earth during the Middle Ages.

And I didn't even touch literature! Neoptolemos offered us a link to that as well as to Byzantine medicine, which should probably be required, preliminary reading materials for anyone making claims about the Byzantines' contributions to science, technology, engineering, or intellectual pursuits.

^Bagdad itself looked a little less glorious when it was overrun by the mongols

That was a good comeback.

(Obviously, this means Christianity never loses ground, and by the year 2000 AD we all live in a spacefaring Byzantine theocracy, but heretic schismatics on Mars refuse to pay their taxes...)..

I never thought I'd say this, but those godforsaken Martians need to pony up and pay their share of taxes to our lord in Constantinoupolis. Otherwise we'll just have to assemble a second Reconquista ala the Justinian Dynasty.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

One person mentioned ship building, but i'd like to see something more specific.

They probably mean skeleton-first (rather than hull-first) construction, which was actually a Late Antique invention, first appearing around 250 AD. The Spur was a Medieval Roman invention, maybe. It's possible that may have been invented in late antiquity as well.

[Kyriakos]

Found this page about byzantine ships (it is in greek, but has many pictures) : http://eclass31.weebly.com/betaupsil...psilonrho.html

Some of the ship types:

-Dromon



-Helandion



-Galley



Liquid fire use:

[Ludicus]

It seems to me the Byzantines did nothing to further human civilisation.

Let's keep in mind that the influence of Byzantium on the Italian Renaissance was profound.Recommended readings,
- Byzantium and the Renaissance: Greek scholars in Venice: Studies in the dissemination of Greek learning from Byzantium to Western Europe,Deno Geanakoplos
- From Byzantium to Italy,Nigel Wilson

...What forward progress did they bring?

Well, above all, most Byzantines seem not to have cared much about what we would call ethnicity. Look at the prominence of ethnic non-Greeks as emperors.

[sanbourne]

* Shipmills (with waterwheels attached to riverboats) were invented by Belisarius in the 6th century AD, during the 537/538 AD Siege of Rome, as recorded by the Byzantine historian Procopius.
* The Corpus Juris Civilis of the 6th century AD, during the reign of Justinian, had a huge impact on later legal jurisprudence.
* Although they obviously didn't invent the original arch bridge, the pointed arched bridge is a Byzantine invention of the 6th century AD.
* Although the earlier Romans and other civilizations had domes, the Byzantines invented the pendentive dome for a rectangular floor plan.

I think using "Byzantine" before the Arab conquest is a too big of a stretch. They were Romans. They were Romans aftert that as well, but before it shouldn't even be argued. So all those achievements were Romans.

In particular, the pendentive dome predates the Fall of the West by centuries, although it's more "mainstream" use came only after the rise of Christianity, with buildings like the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia.



Edit: I would also say the pointed arch was not really an achievement, it was something that was onced once in a way that really doesn't differentiate it from the semi circular arch. There is a different between building it once and actually using a building method extensively and deliberately.

[Basileos Leandros I]

From a military standpoint, all you have to do is to look at the treatises submitted by the generals and strategists of the period. They influenced both Western and Eastern military thinking, as the Byzantines were top military at that point in time.

Kekaumenos and Leo's Taktika spring to mind over here.

[Roma_Victrix]

I think using "Byzantine" before the Arab conquest is a too big of a stretch. They were Romans. They were Romans aftert that as well, but before it shouldn't even be argued. So all those achievements were Romans.

"Byzantine" is an Early Modern moniker (originally used by a 16th-century German historian) and it is implied that one means "Eastern Romans" when using this term. There's really no clear line or event demarcating what is "Eastern Roman" and "Byzantine", or better yet "ancient Roman" and "medieval Roman". Some push the definition all the way to the end of Constantine the Great's reign in 337 AD, which is clearly still in Late Antiquity. Others use the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, although this says more about the western half of the empire than the eastern one. Others push the date further ahead, seeing how Justinian was the last native Latin-speaking Roman emperor and it was only with the reign of Heraclius that Greek became the official language of the (medieval) Eastern Roman Empire, still called the Basileía Rhōmaíōn/Imperium Romanum. From what I've seen, no one uses the East-West Schism of the Orthodox and Catholic churches in 1054 AD as the key event, although it would seem somewhat logical, considering the previous era of the Byzantine-dominated papacy in Rome (537-752 AD).

It's fair to differentiate things as "ancient Roman" and "medieval Roman", but this term you are using, Byzantine, is rather meaningless except for its use as a mere synonym for what was medieval Roman. There is a clear continuity of inherited Greco-Roman culture and institutions from one ruling dynasty to the next, all the way until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD, although one could argue the Fourth Crusade of 1204 and establishment of the Latin Empire interrupted this significantly. This inheritance of ancient Roman ideas and material culture is evident (if not obvious) when one observes the works of the Macedonian Renaissance of the 10th century AD. Of course, there was no more Roman Senate and other relics of the Republican period by the reign of Leo VI the Wise. However, many of these Republican institutions had already been scrapped during the reign of Diocletian (and Dominate era following the Crisis of the Third Century), and yet no one argues that his empire wasn't a Roman one.

[sanbourne]

Hagia what? What is it?

A roman building. But I suppose you know that.

"Byzantine" is an Early Modern moniker (originally used by a 16th-century German historian) and it is implied that one means "Eastern Romans" when using this term. There's really no clear line or event demarcating what is "Eastern Roman" and "Byzantine", or better yet "ancient Roman" and "medieval Roman". Some push the definition all the way to the end of Constantine the Great's reign in 337 AD, which is clearly still in Late Antiquity. Others use the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, although this says more about the western half of the empire than the eastern one. Others push the date further ahead, seeing how Justinian was the last native Latin-speaking Roman emperor and it was only with the reign of Heraclius that Greek became the official language of the (medieval) Eastern Roman Empire, still called the Basileía Rhōmaíōn/Imperium Romanum. From what I've seen, no one uses the East-West Schism of the Orthodox and Catholic churches in 1054 AD as the key event, although it would seem somewat logical, considering the previous era of the Byzantine-dominated papacy in Rome (537-752 AD).

It's fair to differentiate things as "ancient Roman" and "medieval Roman", but this term you are using, Byzantine, is rather meaningless except for its use as a mere synonym for what was medieval Roman. There is a clear continuity of inherited Greco-Roman culture and institutions from one ruling dynasty to the next, all the way until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD, although one could argue the Fourth Crusade of 1204 and establishment of the Latin Empire interrupted this significantly. This inheritance of ancient Roman ideas and material culture is evident (if not obvious) when one observes the works of the Macedonian Renaissance of the 10th century AD.

Indeed. I personally don't like the term, I only used it because I was quoting another post. Also, I'd only add that Heraclius didn't change the official language, as the Romans didn't have one (at least as we understand it today).

[sanbourne]

From a military standpoint, all you have to do is to look at the treatises submitted by the generals and strategists of the period. They influenced both Western and Eastern military thinking, as the Byzantines were top military at that point in time.

Kekaumenos and Leo's Taktika spring to mind over here.

You know, sometimes I read that the best armies deployed by the Roman Empire were those of the 10th and 11th centuries. But I don't know much about them, I tried to find out particularly about Basil II's campaigns and didn't find much. Do you have any book or site to recommend?

[neoptolemos]

"Byzantine" is an Early Modern moniker (originally used by a 16th-century German historian) and it is implied that one means "Eastern Romans" when using this term. There's really no clear line or event demarcating what is "Eastern Roman" and "Byzantine", or better yet "ancient Roman" and "medieval Roman". Some push the definition all the way to the end of Constantine the Great's reign in 337 AD, which is clearly still in Late Antiquity. Others use the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, although this says more about the western half of the empire than the eastern one. Others push the date further ahead, seeing how Justinian was the last native Latin-speaking Roman emperor and it was only with the reign of Heraclius that Greek became the official language of the (medieval) Eastern Roman Empire, still called the Basileía Rhōmaíōn/Imperium Romanum. From what I've seen, no one uses the East-West Schism of the Orthodox and Catholic churches in 1054 AD as the key event, although it would seem somewat logical, considering the previous era of the Byzantine-dominated papacy in Rome (537-752 AD).

It's fair to differentiate things as "ancient Roman" and "medieval Roman", but this term you are using, Byzantine, is rather meaningless except for its use as a mere synonym for what was medieval Roman. There is a clear continuity of inherited Greco-Roman culture and institutions from one ruling dynasty to the next, all the way until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD, although one could argue the Fourth Crusade of 1204 and establishment of the Latin Empire interrupted this significantly. This inheritance of ancient Roman ideas and material culture is evident (if not obvious) when one observes the works of the Macedonian Renaissance of the 10th century AD. Of course, there was no more Roman Senate and other relics of the Republican period by the reign of Leo VI the Wise. However, many of these Republican institutions had already been scrapped during the reign of Diocletian (and Dominate era following the Crisis of the Third Century), and yet no one argues that his empire wasn't a Roman one.

Well I agree there Roma but just to add a more provocative view on the Senate and the "republican" traits of the Roman state that they were present for far more in the course of Roman state reaching the Dominate period and certainly and most importantly the Eastern Romans ......

Although Byzantium is known to history as the Eastern Roman Empire, scholars have long claimed that this Greek Christian theocracy bore little resemblance to Rome. Here, in a revolutionary model of Byzantine politics and society, Anthony Kaldellis reconnects Byzantium to its Roman roots, arguing that from the fifth to the twelfth centuries CE the Eastern Roman Empire was essentially a republic, with power exercised on behalf of the people and sometimes by them too. The Byzantine Republic recovers for the historical record a less autocratic, more populist Byzantium whose Greek-speaking citizens considered themselves as fully Roman as their Latin-speaking “ancestors.”
Kaldellis shows that the idea of Byzantium as a rigid imperial theocracy is a misleading construct of Western historians since the Enlightenment. With court proclamations often draped in Christian rhetoric, the notion of divine kingship emerged as a way to disguise the inherent vulnerability of each regime. The legitimacy of the emperors was not predicated on an absolute right to the throne but on the popularity of individual emperors, whose grip on power was tenuous despite the stability of the imperial institution itself. Kaldellis examines the overlooked Byzantine concept of the polity, along with the complex relationship of emperors to the law and the ways they bolstered their popular acceptance and avoided challenges. The rebellions that periodically rocked the empire were not aberrations, he shows, but an essential part of the functioning of the republican monarchy

.
https://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Rep...0850587&sr=1-6
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Senate
http://constantinople.ehw.gr/forms/f...?lemmaID=11815

[alhoon]

After Heraclius the Byzantine Empire was predominantly Greek in culture, religion (Greek Christianity) and language.

I think using "Byzantine" before the Arab conquest is a too big of a stretch. They were Romans. They were Romans aftert that as well, but before it shouldn't even be argued. So all those achievements were Romans.

Nope, all those Achievements were Byzantine, although the early Byzantines were Romans. When we say "Byzantine" We mean ERE, from the 330 to 1453 AD.

Hagia Sophia is, of course, a Byzantine origin building since it was built by (and paid for) by the Byzantines.

[Roma_Victrix]

After Heraclius the Byzantine Empire was predominantly Greek in culture, religion (Greek Christianity) and language.



Nope, all those Achievements were Byzantine, although the early Byzantines were Romans. When we say "Byzantine" We mean ERE, from the 330 to 1453 AD.

Hagia Sophia is, of course, a Byzantine origin building since it was built by (and paid for) by the Byzantines.

If you want to get specific, the chief architects of the Hagia Sophia were Isidore of Miletus and Anthemius of Tralles, both of whom were ethnic Greeks of the Eastern Roman Empire. I would put them in the same tradition of Greek architects of the previously united Roman Empire, such as Apollodoros of Damascus, who engineered Trajan's bridge, Trajan's Forum, Trajan's Column, and quite possibly the renewed Pantheon under Hadrian.

.
https://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Rep...0850587&sr=1-6
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Senate
http://constantinople.ehw.gr/forms/f...?lemmaID=11815

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Kaldellis presents some interesting ideas, but technically speaking it was not a Republic, even if it contained some Republican institutions from Rome's distant past and had certain outlets for expressing and appeasing the popular will of the people (such as the teams of chariot racers that took on political connotations and affiliations). The Eastern Romans were still ruled by dynastic emperors, so at best it was a constitutional monarchy, not even a "crowned republic" like Venice with its doges. For instance, the Roman Senate continued to exist under the Roman emperors of the Principate period, yet we do not depict the government of this era as a republic (i.e. as it existed before the reign of Augustus).

[neoptolemos]

After Heraclius the Byzantine Empire was predominantly Greek in culture, religion (Greek Christianity) and language.

That's oversimplification and in some aspects misleading.
The empire was Greco-Roman in culture as they were the ethnic Greeks in Roman Empire.Roman civilization was evolving.
There was no distinction between greek or Latin speaking Christians. They were Greek popes in Rome for centuries and they were one church under the imperial jurisdiction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_popes
Greek language was always an official language of Roman state.
Few people know that Julie's Caesar himself used Greek in 2 of his key moments in history.
The day he crossed Rubicon he spoke Greek quoting his favorite Menander and Plutarch transfers to us

Ἑλληνιστὶ πρὸς τοὺς παρόντας ἐκβοήσας, «Ἀνεῤῥίφθω κύβος», διεβίβαζε τὸν στρατόν."

"Speaking Greek to the ones who were present he said The dice has been cast, and then he passed the army.
In the second instance Suitonius mentions that Caesar last words were "και συ τέκνον;" And you my child?
We should confuse not the political term Roman with Italic or Greek ethnicity or languages.

[sanbourne]

If you want to get specific, the chief architects of the Hagia Sophia were Isidore of Miletus and Anthemius of Tralles, both of whom were ethnic Greeks of the Eastern Roman Empire. I would put them in the same tradition of Greek architects of the previously united Roman Empire, such as Apollodoros of Damascus, who engineered Trajan's bridge, Trajan's Forum, Trajan's Column, and quite possibly the renewed Pantheon under Hadrian.

And that tradition is thoroughly roman, Apollodoros even more so. Buildings with arches, vaults, domes, concrete and "mass produced" bricks? They might or not have been ethinically greek, but they were certainly roman engineers.

The advantage of engineering over more... subtle things is that we can physically see it 2000 years later in much the same way the people then saw it. Which allow us to accurately trace the evolution of civil engineering through a certain time. The Hagia Sophia is the result of a tradition that was born and grew in Italy, especially Rome. It just happen that it's "final" big manifestation was built in another city.

Hagia Sophia is, of course, a Byzantine origin building since it was built by (and paid for) by the Byzantines.

If you want to use Byzantine as a synonym for Roman than I suppose you're right. Otherwise no.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

We mean ERE, from the 330 to 1453 AD.

Why do people keep using 330? The Empire was a united entity at several points afterwards. If anything it would be 395, and even then it was still technically a single political entity. And classical historians don't consider the end of late antiquity until Heraclius' reign anyways.

[alhoon]

Why do people keep using 330? The Empire was a united entity at several points afterwards. If anything it would be 395, and even then it was still technically a single political entity.

Because that's when Constantine became Emperor. Why there and not 395? Or the fall of WRE? That's where the cut-off is. It is very important date since that's when Constantinople became capital but it could have been put in a different year, sure.
But if it was 395 people would be asking "why not 330 that Constantinople was made capital?"

If you want to use Byzantine as a synonym for Roman than I suppose you're right. Otherwise no.

The definition for Byzantine is the Eastern Roman Empire from 330 onwards. Make of that whatever you want, but everything the ERE built after 330 is Byzantine.

@Neo: Yes, it's an oversimplification for the reasons you mentioned. However Greek became not an official court language but the official court language replacing Latin. The Byzantine Empire from that point forward was also predominantly inhabited by Greeks. The "Latin speaking Christians" if you want, were a minority.

[sanbourne]

The definition for Byzantine is the Eastern Roman Empire from 330 onwards. Make of that whatever you want, but everything the ERE built after 330 is Byzantine.

I'd say it's at best a convention. I think all books that I read prefer to use the term Roman, although they generally only cover until the Arab conquest or earlier.

@Neo: Yes, it's an oversimplification for the reasons you mentioned. However Greek became not an official court language but the official court language replacing Latin. The Byzantine Empire from that point forward was also predominantly inhabited by Greeks. The "Latin speaking Christians" if you want, were a minority.

As far I know, it didn't. There were never an official language of the Empire. The change from Latin to Greek is generally attributed to Heraclius, but he did no such thing.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

A lot of scholars are pushing to rename it to "Medieval Rome" or "Eastern Rome" and get rid of the term "Byzantine."

[RangerGxi]

But (from a science and cultural perspective) that's not much of an achievement, considering Islamic civilisation at the time was far more innovative, creative and enlightened.

Perhaps compared to the west but that's only because of their absorption of Persia and Egypt.

The Arabs only really preserved old texts and expand religious philosophy. They just lifted everything from other cultures, from plantation style slavery to architecture.

[bigdaddy1204]

Perhaps compared to the west but that's only because of their absorption of Persia and Egypt.

The Arabs only really preserved old texts and expand religious philosophy. They just lifted everything from other cultures, from plantation style slavery to architecture.

Nope. Happy to recommend some books (if youre interested). Although the subject of this thread is the Byzantines. I suppose for me the term "Byzantine Empire" begins to replace "Eastern Roman Empire" from about 700AD. Anything before that would generally be considered Roman. That said, it is possible to argue the ERE actually existed until 1204 when the fourth crusade sacked Constantinople.