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

[Kyriakos]

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.



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

Hm, i think you are being needlessly adamant, given your view is not at all in line with actual facts we have about roman architecture. Ever heard of Vitruvius? You could read who influenced him and who he writes about in his work. It is architects/sculptors/mathematicians/philosophers who are from somewhere starting with Gr and ending in eece Actual romans themselves would laugh at your suggestions.

Btw, the Hagia Sophia is, of course, one of the greatest greek buildings of all time ^^

[antaeus]

Sorry to introduce the "What do we mean by Byzantine" discussion. My intention wasn't to be a pedantic argument about whether the Byzantines were Roman or not. They plainly considered themselves Roman and their institutions may have evolved to be different from their Italian routes, but that evolution was consistent continuing and began the moment Augustus started tinkering.

My intention was to show that you can't just isolate later achievements of the Roman Empire from earlier... So the law consolidation under Justinian was built on a body of legal work that existed. Much like scientific or philosophical developments were built on existing work.

So I really don't mind what you call the later empire so long as it is recognised that at least until the Fourth Crusade, That it was the same steadily evolving Roman Empire founded by Augustus. Whether it's nature was Greek or Roman was irrelevant to me. Rome was ethnically mixed from the moment the Latins marched on the Etruscans or Samnites. Roman emperors over the years came from places as far afield as North Africa and Armenia. The increasing Greek influence was gradual and took many centuries to occur. There was no sudden change in official language, it's a natural evolution based on changing demographics - and that demographic breakdown also included a great many Greek and Latin speaking people who were neither Greek nor Latin. Ethnicity is a really out of place thing to bring to a Roman debate. Ideas about barbarian and civilised are probably more relevant at least until the middle medieval period.

The Romans were also influenced by and had influence over their neighbours throughout. They didn't exist in a vacuum. Roman coins were minted in Arab Syria and Ostrogothic Italy and Frankish Gaul. Greek philosophers knew of their Persian counterparts. Latin historians were influenced by Greek writers. Arab intellectuals were well versed in their Byzantine neighbour's writings.

We're missing the forest for the trees...

[Roma_Victrix]

- and that demographic breakdown also included a great many Greek and Latin speaking people who were neither Greek nor Latin. Ethnicity is a really out of place thing to bring to a Roman debate. Ideas about barbarian and civilised are probably more relevant at least until the middle medieval period.

That's a great point, considering, for instance, the extinction of the Thracian and Illyrian languages, whose speakers gradually spoke only Greek and later Slavic languages (or Albanian or Romanian).

In either case, in addition to the innovations I've mentioned in this thread, one should definitely also take a look at the accomplishments of the 7th-century Byzantine physician Paul of Aegina. Although not as groundbreaking as the ancient Greek Hippocrates or the Roman Galen, Paul of Aegina nevertheless compiled an enormous amount of medical knowledge into a large medical encyclopedia that was used in various places during the Middle Ages, such as Western Europe and the Arab world. Of particular interest are his writings on surgery, which influenced the medical practices of neighboring cultures and included things such as treating hernias. His contemporary Alexander of Tralles also wrote significant medical texts.

[sanbourne]

Hm, i think you are being needlessly adamant

Sorry about that.

given your view is not at all in line with actual facts we have about roman architecture. Ever heard of Vitruvius? You could read who influenced him and who he writes about in his work. It is architects/sculptors/mathematicians/philosophers who are from somewhere starting with Gr and ending in eece Actual romans themselves would laugh at your suggestions.

I believe they line quite well. Vitruvius is an interesting example. He is one of the best known Roman architects but we was a very... conservative one. In a way, he doesn't really belong to the revolutionary engineering tradition fromw which the Hagia Sophia is part of. He would never have been able to design a building like the Baths of Agrippa or the Domus Aurea. The only building that we know he designed was a simple Basilica, that although outclassed most buildings in the Hellenic world because of the wooden truss, was an ordinary building in a small roman town. Ordinary by Roman standards.

Greek influence was very strong in Roman culture, and in architecture is no different. Especially because in pre-modern times engineering was less of a science and more of an art. However, we can separate Roman engineering in a more traditional one and a revolutionary one. The latter has greek influence only marginally, in ideas and aesthetics, but not in the structural knowledge. Take the Pantheon for example, the idea of the symmetry and proportion might have come from a time before Rome, probably before the Greeks as well, but the structural knowledge required to built the dome was purely Roman. You don't see any building in Ancient Greece, indeed, anywhere in the world, like that. You might find a round building or one with a similar "ceiling", but those are all superficial similarities.

Another interesting example can be find in the Baths of Caracalla. You have many interior columns that seems to be supporting the vaulted roof. A Greek from before the Roman conquest would probably recgonize the column, but while those elements were used as a structural support in Greek temples, in the Baths they were merely decorative. You can literally take the column away and the building would still stand. And that's an interesting analogue to the Greek influence. It's something that is there, but is not needed for the building. Like in modern times. We see classical influence in many building today, especially public ones. But they are only for show.

The Hagia Sophia has even less Greek influence. As classical ideas haven given way to Christian ones. In a way, the Hagia Sophai the more Roman "temple" ever built.

I recommend this course for anyone interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd3MJPHaotQ&t=7s

Btw, the Hagia Sophia is, of course, one of the greatest greek buildings of all time ^^

My impression is that you probably know quite a lot about the building. And so you probably know everything I just told you and is just joking and know how wrong your sentence is. (I'm trying not to sound adamant here.)

[Kyriakos]

^Know about it? I modelled the damned thing. I know what it looks like and its proportions very well, all 50.000 polygons of it

[sanbourne]

^Know about it? I modelled the damned thing. I know what it looks like and its proportions very well, all 50.000 polygons of it

And you did a superb job at that.

And that's why I think you understand and agree with what I'm saying. The more one knows the Hagia Sophia, the more one can appreciate it, especially in its structural engineering.

[bigdaddy1204]

I just wanted to comment that this thread has reached 1453 views... a number that has great resonance in Byzantine history!

[Kyriakos]

Next views stop: 1911, and then treaty of Sevres

[Basileos Leandros I]

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?

My favourite book on Byzantine military in fact - Sowing the Dragon's Teeth by Eric McGeer.

[bigdaddy1204]

On the Byzantines, I'm a bit tied up at work just now but will try to respond to some posts this evening, especially Roma Victrix list and maybe a few others. Generally, i think the preponderance of Late Antiquity achievements vs. later needs to be addressed. Also Christianity aspects could be interesting, esp. whether it was the cause of an intellectual Dark Age e.g. closing the Academy of Athens or whether it produced anything of value

[sanbourne]

My favourite book on Byzantine military in fact - Sowing the Dragon's Teeth by Eric McGeer.

Alas, I was about to get the book when I realized there is no ebook! I'd have to import the book and it would be quite expensive. If I'm look I might find one in a local bookstore but it won't be easy.

[alhoon]

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.

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

Of course it's a convention. Byzantines were the actual continuation of the Roman Empire in the east that was gradually transformed through centuries to be something different. But they didn't even use the word "Byzantine" themselves.
Well, in the past a lot of scholars decided to call what is actually "Medieval Rome" as "Byzantine" and so we're stack with it. When they change it to "ERE" or "Medieval Rome" then we could have a thread about "What are the achievements of Medieval Rome?" but right now the convention is to call them Byzantines.
However, with the pope in the actual city of Rome in the middle ages, Medieval Rome could be problematic.

So I have to say to the many scholars that while "Medieval Roman Empire" is a better term than both Byzantine Empire and Medieval Rome... it is bigger. I prefer Byzantine. Or ERE which is shorter but I have been used to call it Byzantine Empire.

[neoptolemos]

For those who are not familiar with the Byzantine ivories.
Made during Macedonian period they seem at least in my eyes as "GrecoRoman" like other earlier artifacts.

Also to an earlier poster.
I don't think we should underestimate the affect of the Justinian plague on the Mediterrenean.
The toll of death and devastation as a result of the pandemic was the most significant reason of the collapse of both the Eastern Roman empire and its newly reconquered areas.
I am ok with revisionism of the Vandal and Gothic kingdoms but it is unfair to attribute to the Romans, the most successful and well organized state of the era, the decline of the reconquered lands.

[bigdaddy1204]

Of course it's a convention. Byzantines were the actual continuation of the Roman Empire in the east that was gradually transformed through centuries to be something different. But they didn't even use the word "Byzantine" themselves.
Well, in the past a lot of scholars decided to call what is actually "Medieval Rome" as "Byzantine" and so we're stack with it. When they change it to "ERE" or "Medieval Rome" then we could have a thread about "What are the achievements of Medieval Rome?" but right now the convention is to call them Byzantines.
However, with the pope in the actual city of Rome in the middle ages, Medieval Rome could be problematic.

So I have to say to the many scholars that while "Medieval Roman Empire" is a better term than both Byzantine Empire and Medieval Rome... it is bigger. I prefer Byzantine. Or ERE which is shorter but I have been used to call it Byzantine Empire.

The Arabs and Turks called Byzantines Rum, meaning Romans.

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

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

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

[dogukan]

I have posted some examples of Byzantine excellence, as people tend to forget that the Byzantine hymns are a form of poetry. Some of the lyrics in the hymns are really touching. Of course we should not forget the female composer Kassiani.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyxcaSLEix0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da9FeNoFIm0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOwz3XVJJyI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIHXj9LCcSw

OHHHOHOHOH since we are at it, listen to this beauty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsLgLNgA-_Q

Also, that secular music you posted is the basis of the Ottoman Classical Music, a form of art both conservative and secular Turks are very very veery proud. Event the discriminating(conservative and nationalist) types respect the Armenian and Greek masters of Ottoman Classical Music.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bonus fact: according to the above verse, the Romans were defeated “in the lowest land”. This had once been a mystery, but is no longer such. The places where the main battles took place (in Damascus and Jerusalem) lie in a vast area of low-lying land called the Great Rift Valley. The Great Rift Valley is a huge 5,000 km fault line in the earth’s crust that runs from northern Syria in the Middle-East of Asia to central Mozambique in East Africa. With the help of satellite images, it has been discovered that the area around the Dead Sea (located in the Great Rift Valley) has the lowest altitude on Earth. In fact, the lowest point on Earth is the shoreline of the Dead Sea, with an altitude of around 400 meters below sea level. The fact that it lies at the lowest point means that water does not drain from the sea. No land point on earth has a lower altitude than the shoreline of the Dead Sea.

You are going full missionary today man

[neoptolemos]

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

I don't think it is matter of what you are or I am thinking about the name but what the scientific evidence and historical sources are attesting.
They were calling themselves Romans and they were absolutely certain that they were the Romans. We could call them Eastern Romans, Romioi, Medieval Romans because these are the historical names. The constructed term "Byzantine" encloses so many negative traits such as orentialism, colonialism, revisionism and misconceptions that should be gradually replaced by the academia.
Now concerning the 1204 fall of Constantinople. We should not forget that apart from the loss of the city, the institutions, nomenclature and administration of the Empire of Nicaea was again the Roman state.

Some scholars see the Nicene empire period as an indication of rising ethnic Hellenic consciousness and Greek nationalism. However, these scholars caution that a rise in ethnic consciousness did not affect the official imperial ideology.^[6] In the official ideology, the traditional Byzantine view of Byzantium as the successor of Rome was not overturned, as the usage of the word Rhomaioi for subjects of the Nicene emperors demonstrates.^[6] The official ideology of the Nicene Empire was one of reconquest and militarism, which was not to be seen in later 14th-century Palaiologan rhetoric.^[7] The ideology of 13th-century Nicaea was characterized by belief in the continued significance of Constantinople and the hope to recapture the city, drawing less on claims of political universalism or Hellenic nationalism than on Old Testament ideas of Jewish providence. The emperor in this period is frequently compared to Moses^[8] or Zorobabel, or even as the “pillar of fire” that guides God’s people to the Promised Land, e.g. in a speech delivered by Theodore I Laskaris, written by Niketas Choniates.^[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Nicaea
I think what we should not confuse here is the rise of Greek nationalism after 1204 with the official imperial ideology. The rise of the Greek nationalism within the empire was the affect of
1. the reduction of the imperial lands to densely Greek populated areas and loss of the multiethnic populace. The Roman political ideology and identity was bound to the citizenship, christianity and the emperor and this meant that everyone no matter their ethnic background could be a citizen or subject of the empire.
2. The emergence of new neighboring Medieval states that they were creating new contenders of the imperial lands. These states were consolidating former imperial lands under their rule. That also meant a form of an early ethnogenesis for Bulgarian, Serbians and Turks.
3. The increasing power of the Pope and the Western kingdoms which portrayed Romans as "heretics" or the "others" or derogatory "Greeks".

[neoptolemos]

OHHHOHOHOH since we are at it, listen to this beauty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsLgLNgA-_Q

Also, that secular music you posted is the basis of the Ottoman Classical Music, a form of art both conservative and secular Turks are very very veery proud. Event the discriminating(conservative and nationalist) types respect the Armenian and Greek masters of Ottoman Classical Music.

Indeed Dogukan my friend, The Greeks, Romans and the Ottomans are our shared culture and tradition which make us more akin than the modern nationalists want us to be.
The video you posted is thrilling. There is so much Eastern mysticism in the hymns and the atmosphere which is hypnotizing and mediating at the same time

[bigdaddy1204]

If we are taking a cultural route (music/arts), I think one Byzantine mosaic stands out above all the others. It is a depiction of Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus son of Mary). What interests me about this image is that it seems more lifelike than all the other mosaics in the Hagia Sophia. IIRC, there is some disagreement over whether this was made in the 12th century or the 13th.

Now concerning the 1204 fall of Constantinople. We should not forget that apart from the loss of the city, the institutions, nomenclature and administration of the Empire of Nicaea was again the Roman state.

I think one of the interesting things about the empire after the 1261 recapture of Constantinople is that although it is called "Byzantine Empire", actually it may be more accurate to call it "Empire of Nicaea which has captured Constantinople", which is basically what it was. The state did not magically change in 1261 to become the old empire pre-1204. That had been destroyed. They wanted to restore the earlier Roman civilisation, and they were part of that tradition, but what should we call them during this period? Byzantines? Or Nicaeans? Or Romans? Or Greeks? Very confusing.

[Rinan]

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

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

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

Also to an earlier poster.
I don't think we should underestimate the affect of the Justinian plague on the Mediterrenean.
The toll of death and devastation as a result of the pandemic was the most significant reason of the collapse of both the Eastern Roman empire and its newly reconquered areas.
I am ok with revisionism of the Vandal and Gothic kingdoms but it is unfair to attribute to the Romans, the most successful and well organized state of the era, the decline of the reconquered lands.

That'd have been me

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

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

The 540s saw Italy devastated, as Roman [!] and Gothic armies in turn conquered and reconquered sections of the peninsula, and when war largely stopped in 554, Italy, now Roman again, had a fiscal system in ruins, a fragmented economy and a largely scattered aristocracy... Today, Justinian is above all accused of ruining the empire financially, thanks to his anachronistic wars in the West; the eastern empire after his death in 565 is often seen as weakened, both militarily and economically, a state of affairs that would result in the political disasters of the years after 610' (i.e. the Persian and Arab wars. Source: The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000. p. 93, 94.

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

[neoptolemos]

If we are taking a cultural route (music/arts), I think one Byzantine mosaic stands out above all the others. It is a depiction of Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus son of Mary). What interests me about this image is that it seems more lifelike than all the other mosaics in the Hagia Sophia. IIRC, there is some disagreement over whether this was made in the 12th century or the 13th.

This is one of the masterpieces of the late Byzantine art and shows the level of craftmanship of the Constantinopolean artists and their workshops....
Christ here is depicted in his 2 natures. Half his face and one eye is austere half of his face is sympathetic. Brilliant way to denote his dual nature.
Here is the whole mosaic

For me its the John the Baptist that has a scent of Renaissance art on him...

I also like the mosaics the Constantinopolitans made in Sicily, for the Norman kingdom

I think one of the interesting things about the empire after the 1261 recapture of Constantinople is that although it is called "Byzantine Empire", actually it may be more accurate to call it "Empire of Nicaea which has captured Constantinople", which is basically what it was. The state did not magically change in 1261 to become the old empire pre-1204. That had been destroyed. They wanted to restore the earlier Roman civilisation, and they were part of that tradition, but what should we call them during this period? Byzantines? Or Nicaeans?

Romans, they were calling themselves Romans and their political ideology was that of the former state because they were the same people that were running the empire before the fall. (see my previous post)
Rome has been sacked before in the West but that did not affect the continuation of the state. Heck it has even moved its capital to Constantinople