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

[Mamlaz]

Although come to think of it, was it really so heroic?

Yes, it really was.

It was pretty epic.

From the perspective of the Islamic civilisation, Constantine XI was offered a chance to peacefully surrender the city. If he had said "Yes", might have been a more peaceful outcome (at least for the ordinary citizens). This did happen at Trebizond a few years later, where the city sensibly just surrendered without any loss of life. Overall one wonders if lives were wasted needlessly if the defence hadn't any realistic chance of success.[/spoiler]

From the perspective of the Christian civilization, the Fatimids were offered to give up Jerusalem to the crusaders peacefully, this would have also prevented loss of life, like what happened during the Sixth Crusade

[Cyclops]

Ancient history is divided into two parts: the founding of Ancient Athens by George Washington, and the founding of Rome...by George Washington. ...

There was a very funny little parody of British History teaching in the 1930's.

A Memorable History of England, comprising all the parts you can remember, including 103 Good Things, 5 Bad Kings and 2 Genuine Dates... two out of the four Dates originally included were eliminated at the last moment, a research done at the Eton and Harrow match having revealed that they are not memorable.

The two memorable dates are 55 BC (Caesar's Invasion of Britain "...a Good Thing, since the Britons were only natives at that time") and 1066 (William the Conqueror). I have wracked my brains as to what the other two might have been, I suppose one is 1215 (Magna Carta) and perhaps 1688 (the Glorious Revolution) or perhaps 1707 (Act of Union).

The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice versa. It is essential to keep these distinctions clearly in mind (and verce visa). ...
The brutal Saxon invaders drove the Britons westward into Wales and compelled them to become Welsh; it is now considered doubtful whether this was a Good Thing. Memorable among the Saxon warriors were Hengist and his wife (? or horse), Horsa. Hengist made himself King in the South. Thus Hengist was the first English King and his wife (or horse), Horsa, the first English Queen (or horse). The country was now almost entirely inhabited by Saxons and was therefore renamed England, and thus (naturally) soon became C. of E. This was a Good Thing, because previously the Saxons had worshipped some dreadful gods of their own called Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

You get the idea. I think it only remains for you, Roma, to publish "1776 and All That", the US version, and Kyriakos to pen "1453 and All That".

I'll try the Australian Version.

Australia was discovered by Captain Cook in 1778, as previous explorers were undocumented migrants. Cook also discovered the Aborigines, who were up to that time afraid of nothing (Terror Nullius).

etc. etc.

[Niles Crane]

There's really not much to see during the Dark Ages.

Heh.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

At least I got it.

[Roma_Victrix]

There was a very funny little parody of British History teaching in the 1930's.



The two memorable dates are 55 BC (Caesar's Invasion of Britain "...a Good Thing, since the Britons were only natives at that time") and 1066 (William the Conqueror). I have wracked my brains as to what the other two might have been, I suppose one is 1215 (Magna Carta) and perhaps 1688 (the Glorious Revolution) or perhaps 1707 (Act of Union).



You get the idea. I think it only remains for you, Roma, to publish "1776 and All That", the US version, and Kyriakos to pen "1453 and All That".

I'll try the Australian Version.

etc. etc.

Now that's a well-rounded education! Bloody tax dollars are finally good for something, right lads?

[athanaric]

Heh.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

At least I got it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now I feel stupid for not getting it immediately...

[Roma_Victrix]

That's an amazingly thorough curriculum though - most people (at least around here) never learn anything about half of these topics in school.

You're from Germany, right? Perhaps US education (at least what it used to be back in the early 2000s when I was in high school) has a global outlook due to our "melting pot" cultural legacy. That and our position as superpower and global hegemon. Germany simply does not have the same impetus, outlook or concerns, at least not at the moment! Angela Merkel is seeing to that.

Too be fair and can't say how old you are. There is CW background for the break. Lynn White had pretty much won with his Medieval revolution in technology ting for a good junk of the middle of time up till maybe the late 90s (and the associated Finely view of the ancient economy), which makes Medieval to Renaissance Europe pivotal. And facts are facts From Columbus until WW1 Europe more or less dictated the fate of the world and proceeded to do so. I mean really I am sure you have a lot of interesting discussion about Indonesian culture and history in 1750, but it rather more important to know the Dutch showed up and ran the game at least at HS school level.

Good points. We did at least learn about the ancient civilizations around the world, in the Americas, Europe, parts of Africa (not just North Africa), and West + South + East Asia. That sounds pretty impressive on its face, but most of it was consumed by European history past the year 1400 or so and by the 18th century it was almost exclusively American history, aside from the Napoleonic Wars and then the two World Wars. We obviously had to learn a little something about early Russian history before we dived into the Cold War and Soviet Union.

All of these, by the way, were far more detailed once I got to college, where I took courses on things such as Korean history, European military history, and a course dedicated entirely to the French and Indian War (it didn't focus on the European theater of this conflict, though, only North America). I think one of my college courses barely scratched the Byzantines, though. I learned more about them on my own! Well, at least that was the case in my undergrad days. Things changed when I became a graduate student to receive a master's in medieval and early modern history. We had to learn about manuscript cultures and scripts of the Middle Ages, plus philosophical tracts that were bound to include Byzantine connections. For instance, the 9th-century Irish Carolingian theologian John Scotus Eriugena and his use of Greek in his texts.

[Kyriakos]

Now that's a well-rounded education! Bloody tax dollars are finally good for something, right lads?

That looks line the lego spearmen (or was it archers?) uniform

[Condottiere 40K]

As I recall, the equivalent to primaries two to five were spent on English history, the equivalent to primary six was Ancient Egyptian and Classical Greek.

The majority of what I knew of ancient history came from a rather dry British archaeological series that started with the Indus and Sumerian digs; my parents had the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and even though I had no trouble finishing off rather fat thousand page books on Nationalist Socialists and the Great Patriotic War, I gave up on that after three chapters.

[Ludicus]

They were calling themselves Romans...

Indeed. According to Prof. Warren Treadgold Byzantium was essentially a monocultural melting pot. New arrivals learned Greek, called themselves Romans (we'd call them "Byzantines"), married Byzantines, and practically forgot their origins in a generation or two.

[athanaric]

Although come to think of it, was it really so heroic? Considering there wasn't really any chance of victory?

You're confusing "heroic" with "sensible" here, even though the two are often juxtaposed (it's sensible to just run away from a disaster; it's heroic to try and save someone else from said disaster, while lessening the chances of your own escape by doing so).
The Byzantines decided to make a heroic last stand, perhaps reckoning that in their time, surrender didn't always mean the conquerors would actually spare you. And there were other consequences to peaceful surrender - for example, the outlook of life as a second class citizen at the mercy of a new ethno-religious ruling class.

You're from Germany, right? Perhaps US education (at least what it used to be back in the early 2000s when I was in high school) has a global outlook due to our "melting pot" cultural legacy. That and our position as superpower and global hegemon. Germany simply does not have the same impetus, outlook or concerns, at least not at the moment! Angela Merkel is seeing to that.

Nah, it's just that German curriculum is focused on teaching guilt. Thusly, most of the time allotted to history is spent on WWII, Nazis, the Holocaust, a bit of the 19th century, colonialism (with perhaps an extra sprinkling of American Guilt^TM by including NA slavery etc.), the Weimar Republic, Nazis, and the French Revolution. Can't remember meeting anyone who learn anything about the Byzantine Empire in school.

[LinusLinothorax]

You're confusing "heroic" with "sensible" here, even though the two are often juxtaposed (it's sensible to just run away from a disaster; it's heroic to try and save someone else from said disaster, while lessening the chances of your own escape by doing so).
The Byzantines decided to make a heroic last stand, perhaps reckoning that in their time, surrender didn't always mean the conquerors would actually spare you. And there were other consequences to peaceful surrender - for example, the outlook of life as a second class citizen at the mercy of a new ethno-religious ruling class.

Personally, I don't think there is anything more glorious than a king fighting and dying alongside his soldiers during the final battle. Even more so if he is named Constantine and he is defending Constantinople.

[EmperorBatman999]

Personally, I don't think there is anything more glorious than a king fighting and dying alongside his soldiers during the final battle. Even more so if he is named Constantine and he is defending Constantinople.

The Romans seem to have a particular knack for bookending names. Like the Western Empire's last emperor, Romulus Augustlus, whom bears the names of the first Roman and the first Roman emperor.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Indeed. Muslim golden age lasted a few centuries, after which it became savage, by having some scholar attack greek philosophy and science. Byz empire also managed to sort of build a few large and imposing buildings, though i cannot readily think of one.

Someone in this forum posted years ago this nice letter: http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm It really opened my eyes about the Golden Age of Islam in case of who produced the actual work.

[bigdaddy1204]

The Byzantine idea of hesychasm is something that I'd like to know more about. One person already mentioned barlaam and his ideological opponent in the hesychast controversy. As i understand it hesychasm seems to have been a mystical form of Christianity which focused on inner discovery, but which was considered heretical by some Orthodox Christians. Is this correct?

[hellheaven1987]

Someone in this forum posted years ago this nice letter: http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm It really opened my eyes about the Golden Age of Islam in case of who produced the actual work.

Interesting, but not surprise since Assyrians were often either subject of ERE or Sassanid.

[Condottiere 40K]

Co-option of previous civilizations' achievement is obvious by the Arab expansionists, since their nomad culture is rather unlikely to have come on that on their own, but generally doing so tends to ensure the longevity of any such culture.

Though this tends to be rarely pointed out in the case of the Arab expansion.

[Kyriakos]

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.

Maybe "more lively" ones were just destroyed, given most of everything was. It's a bit like using the Parthenon as a gunpowder storage facility, or turning churches into stables. All for glory of islam ottoman stronk, of course

[bigdaddy1204]

Maybe "more lively" ones were just destroyed, given most of everything was. It's a bit like using the Parthenon as a gunpowder storage facility, or turning churches into stables. All for glory of islam ottoman stronk, of course

Presumably you'd have no objection to seeing ancient Greek temples turned into Christian churches, though. The Parthenon is an example of that. Double standards?

We know Greeks don't like Ottomans but I'd rather this thread stay away from nationalistic/jingoistic type posts. In terms of the Jesus mosaic, i think it represents a new more humanistic style which depicts Jesus' personality and emotions in a way perhaps not seen so clearly before. I'm not sure the significance of the book he is holding. What is that? Presumably not the bible as that hadn't been written yet?

[Alejandro Sanchez]

As i understand it hesychasm seems to have been a mystical form of Christianity which focused on inner discovery, but which was considered heretical by some Orthodox Christians. Is this correct?

It's ascetic practice in Orhodox Christianity. I have never heard that this was considered heresy. Moreover, only the church council can decide on heresy, and the personal opinion of an individual Christian is just his personal opinion. Maybe you mean Imiaslavie?

In terms of the Jesus mosaic, i think it represents a new more humanistic style which depicts Jesus' personality and emotions in a way perhaps not seen so clearly before.

It's obvious that any perception always subjective.

I'm not sure the significance of the book he is holding. What is that? Presumably not the bible as that hadn't been written yet?

He holds the Gospel.

[AnthoniusII]

I strongly believe that this short lecture video gives the answer to the OP.

9:00 minute containes the entire answer.
I rest my case.
I could sugest :
Studies on Byzantine History by Alfred Rabaud 1909 but its a book too rare!