ERE was the Culture Center of the known world for 1000 years. Fall of Constantinople and migration of Roman scholars to the west greatly helped incipience of Renascence and Europe dominance in next 5 centuries. Still people mainly focus on barbarian factions and call Middle Ages, Dark Ages. What do you think are reasons for this IMO unacceptable error? My hints : 1.The Great Schism 2.Roman focus on their problems solely. 3.Treacherous Roman reputation.
1.The Great Schism Schism(s) 2.Roman focus on their problems solely. I'm not sure I follow this one, I could give different answers depending on what you mean. 3.Treacherous Roman reputation. Same with this one, but I'm guessing you're referencing the 'Byzantine Backwardness'?
2.I mean that Constantinople wasn't interested in some universal European problems like Rome was. e. g. Christianity 3. I'm referencing on overall dubious Roman reputation during all periods od their states.
Well they were, but over time they just couldn't control it, they tried. I'm being very general here in attempt to cover this question which seems a little broad. The rest of Europe was considered Barbarian including some Popes especially after the loss of Rome.
Why is it not acknowledged in the modern days? Western bias. Medieval Europe never took really well to different cultures, and Roman culture in the time was quite different. That bias gave birth to such negative stereotypes such as duplicity (Not really that much different from Western Europe of the time) and over-complication that was supposedly involved in Roman politics. Such bias of course was carried over from there and put into words by idiots such as Edward Gibbons (Whose false views shaped the perception of the Empire for years to come). And of course, this led to many Roman achievements on both the cultural as well as the military field being ignored.
If there was a movie about the Byzantine Empire and if it portrays them positively then they will have the recognition they deserve.
In addition to what has already been proposed by Pertucci, I would say also that the relationship of the Eastern Roman (some would say Byzantine) Empire with, say, the Western "Latin" states of Venice, Genoa, and others also perhaps played into the idea of the Eastern Romans as excessively complicated in bureaucracy, underhanded in diplomatic affairs, and devious in character. This is literally what the adjective "byzantine" means in modern English, sad to say. Major points of contention between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Latin West would certainly be the Massacre of the Latins (of the Roman Catholics within the city of Constantinople) in 1182, followed by the Crusader sacking of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade. The ensuing tensions between Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics during the phase of Crusader occupation in the Latin Empire certainly didn't help things. It's amazing to think that at one point the Eastern Roman Empire dominated the papacy, with the line of so called "Byzantine popes" reigning from 537 to 752. The theological differences that solidified and hardened during the following centuries proved enough for a formal divorce, though, in the Great Schism of 1054. Theological differences didn't stop Alexios I Komnenos to call on the aid of the West and Pope Urban II to help him battle against the Seljuq Turks in Asia Minor and the Muslim-controlled Levant. However, he got far more than he bargained for when a massive Crusader army entered his territory instead of handpicked mercenaries as he had expected. In return for oaths of homage from the Crusade leaders Bohemond of Taranto and Raymond IV of Toulouse, Alexios promised to supply them with provisions. Their armies were able to hand Alexios back many key cities in Anatolia, but Latin chroniclers state that this was due largely in part to the Eastern Roman Emperor's trickery and deception. That certainly played into the negative perception of the Eastern Romans.
