Why Roman Empire enthusiasts are not so interested in Byzantine history?

[neoptolemos]

As far i have seen all these months in TWC forums,there are really a lot of Roman empire enthusiasts

I have notice though that although there are many,fewer people are interested in Byzantine(Medieval Roman) Empire and it's history...:hmmm:


Why?Have you come up with a reason?

Post your thoughts and suggestions

[Carl von Döbeln]

:hmmm:
I love both roman and byzantine history...can't figure out why other's dont

[Carach]

:hmmm:
I love both roman and byzantine history...can't figure out why other's dont

same.

[neoptolemos]

My though is that the emerge of medieval european states and their history made the choices far more that the 200 BC-400 AD timeframe of Western Part of the Roman empire..

Thus more choices/more splitted interests i suppose...

Off course there are many reasons, this though was the first thing that came to my mind and started this thread

[Oglethorpe1983]

I think there are several reasons for this

1) Rome; specifically Western Rome is much more glamorrized then the Eastern empire, both in Hollywood and in schools (college included); so much so that many casual enthusuasts might not even be aware of the Byzantines

2) i think many people have a Latin Bias...making a Latin Rome far more appealing then a Greek Byzantium.

3) Pagen Rome allows for much more mysticism and debauchary then Orthadox Christian Byzantium. It is far more interesting for many to read about the orgies of bacchus or the gladatorial games then the building of churches by a Byzantine emperor

Just my take on this issue....

[neoptolemos]

I think there are several reasons for this

1) Rome; specifically Western Rome is much more glamorrized then the Eastern empire, both in Hollywood and in schools (college included); so much so that many casual enthusuasts might not even be aware of the Byzantines

2) i think many people have a Latin Bias...making a Latin Rome far more appealing then a Greek Byzantium.

3) Pagen Rome allows for much more mysticism and debauchary then Orthadox Christian Byzantium. It is far more interesting for many to read about the orgies of bacchus or the gladatorial games then the building of churches by a Byzantine emperor

Just my take on this issue....

Excellent post

3 justified reasons!!!

About hollywood you are TOTALLY right!
Even subconsciously hollywood influences a lot of people

[Eastern Roman]

2) i think many people have a Latin Bias...making a Latin Rome far more appealing then a Greek Byzantium.

yup

Well, i also i'm a 'Rome's Fun' than 'Constantinople's Fun'
mostly because of the organization of the army they way of thinking, "Strength and Honor"....
saying all this reminds me the movie Gladiator (hollywood also then) they way romans march, fight and that disipline and greatness...
Eastern Roman Empire is known for other great things (laws, diplomacy, etc) not for it's great and displine armies. Battle and warfare seems to be more interesting to most people, like me

[Kaapeli]

I must be an exception then because I find Byzantine history more fascinating than previous Roman eras.

But I also think that the Migrations Period is more interesting than Medieval history on the whole.

So it's really a tie between these two time periods for me.

[Dromikaites]

Hollywood mainly.

And it could be also Edward Gibbon's idiotic opinion the Byzantine Empire was a degenerate descendant of the Roman empire. Quite a surprising verdict coming from somebody otherwise well read and who could have seen that at least until the end of the 12th century the Byzantine state could be considered a true empire (in the sense it was bigger than any western state).

[neoptolemos]

@Kaapeli

Welcome to the club of late Roman history fans!

@Dromikaites

You are right Edward Gibbons "Rise and Fall" of the Roman empire was an extremely influential book as there were later the Hollywood epic movies!

[Iberus_generalis]

because byzantines are boring.
Besides they got their ass kicked by pretty much everyone who tryed to conquer them... The Crusaders, the Turks... BORING =P LOL=)

BTW byzantines are roman no more to me, they became more greek/hellenized then roman by their later times.... to me they are a decadant remnant of the once powerfull Roman Empire

/jk

Now, enough of the joking.
I find the Earlier Roman Republic, and the Empire it self when West was the wallmark, because of the same reason most people prefer Rome Total War to Medieval Total War 2... The Western roman timeline had a lot of dispar cultures and peoples, we had the hellenic nations, the carthagineans, the Celtics, the Latin peoples, the iberians, germans the list goes on. While in the earlier medieval times, and the times of the byzantines, a lot of those cultures were no more, the magic of the Roman world was lost, and only shadows and dust remained of the old days, replaced by war, famine, desease, death, fear of the ocult, stupid superstitions, and the list goes on, when cultures that supposedly were considered diferent were almost equal, everyone lived almost the same way, the mentality was similar througout europe, only the colors of the feudal lords changed, as opposed the marked ethnical diversity of the pre-Empire times. both the Timelines are extremely interesting, but most people prefer one to the other.

Another important factor is that Byzantium remained more or less restricted to its geographical area for most of the time. the new states like france, england, Castilla, leon, the Italian States, the the HRE, had much more visible roles in the shapping of europe, and lived to this day in some form, while byzantium withered with the centuries, until it was conquered by the turks, thus its perceived importance was largely diminished.
Also consider that History is made by the Victors. Who won? the Turks, they over time, tried their best to diminish the importance of the vanquished people, and thus diminishing the perceived importance of byzantium in the world. so much that byzantium became almost a simple Hellenic Pride.
Also geography is important... No1 here in portugal and Spain knows about Byzantium, not even that it was the last remnants of the Roman empire, well into the Medieval era. Again, because of the factors i already mentioned, as well as the culture of self imposed ignorance we live in nowadays, not just locally, but also worldwide.

Also like its been said already in the thread, the Byzantines dont have that mysticism that the Latin romans had. when you mix romanity with Christiandom, the mix won't result as Roman per se. For me the soul of the Roman Empire died the day Christianity was declared the official religion, as opposed to the cosmopolitan culture of tolerance of religion that existed in a broader aspect throughout the empire until then. Ok i aknowledge christians suffered, but many unnoficial religions were tolerated, and in time assimilated by the Romans.

[neoptolemos]

because byzantines are boring.
Besides they got their ass kicked by pretty much everyone who tryed to conquer them... The Crusaders, the Turks... BORING =P LOL=)

BTW byzantines are roman no more to me, they became more greek/hellenized then roman by their later times.... to me they are a decadant remnant of the once powerfull Roman Empire

/jk

Now, enough of the joking.
I find the Earlier Roman Republic, and the Empire it self when West was the wallmark, because of the same reason most people prefer Rome Total War to Medieval Total War 2... The Western roman timeline had a lot of dispar cultures and peoples, we had the hellenic nations, the carthagineans, the Celtics, the Latin peoples, the iberians, germans the list goes on. While in the earlier medieval times, and the times of the byzantines, a lot of those cultures were no more, the magic of the Roman world was lost, and only shadows and dust remained of the old days, replaced by war, famine, desease, death, fear of the ocult, stupid superstitions, and the list goes on, when cultures that supposedly were considered diferent were almost equal, everyone lived almost the same way, the mentality was similar througout europe, only the colors of the feudal lords changed, as opposed the marked ethnical diversity of the pre-Empire times. both the Timelines are extremely interesting, but most people prefer one to the other.

Another important factor is that Byzantium remained more or less restricted to its geographical area for most of the time. the new states like france, england, Castilla, leon, the Italian States, the the HRE, had much more visible roles in the shapping of europe, and lived to this day in some form, while byzantium withered with the centuries, until it was conquered by the turks, thus its perceived importance was largely diminished.
Also consider that History is made by the Victors. Who won? the Turks, they over time, tried their best to diminish the importance of the vanquished people, and thus diminishing the perceived importance of byzantium in the world. so much that byzantium became almost a simple Hellenic Pride.
Also geography is important... No1 here in portugal and Spain knows about Byzantium, not even that it was the last remnants of the Roman empire, well into the Medieval era. Again, because of the factors i already mentioned, as well as the culture of self imposed ignorance we live in nowadays, not just locally, but also worldwide.

Also like its been said already in the thread, the Byzantines dont have that mysticism that the Latin romans had. when you mix romanity with Christiandom, the mix won't result as Roman per se. For me the soul of the Roman Empire died the day Christianity was declared the official religion, as opposed to the cosmopolitan culture of tolerance of religion that existed in a broader aspect throughout the empire until then. Ok i aknowledge christians suffered, but many unnoficial religions were tolerated, and in time assimilated by the Romans.

This is more thorough and justified with logical arguments post

You have mentioned 3 major factors,i would like to summarize:
1.The variety and difference of the pre-medieval cultures
-I personally believe that it was the Roman dominance of the Europe which gradually assimilate a lot of different cultures(being strongly influential and victorious-a very good Asterix album points that humoristicaly)

2.Geography and the appearance of more related to single nations kingdoms in Europe along with the geographical reduce of the Roman empire afte the fall of the Western part

3.The suffering of ERE prestige after Ottoman conquest(that's a really original argument +rep)

4.Paganism and mysticism vs Christianity and strict church

[neoptolemos]

Byzantine history Boring?

It is the first time i have read this opinion:hmmm:

Perhaps their new ethnic composition is a possible explanation

[Manco]

Isn't it just that most people on these boards are either Western European or descendants of Western Europeans? We just don't have that historical and romantic link to the ERE as we had with the WRE.
On top of that the states we do have that link with seemed to somewhat dislike the Byzantines after the first few crusades.
Both those factors seriously limt the general population's interest in the Byzantines

[neoptolemos]

Having read you post i remember another thing.

Catholic church and Eastern Orthodox church after the schism became worse than enemies...

This rivalry had a great affect for both sides.

Even a misjudgment in Roman history as a whole and it's artificial devision

[Iberus_generalis]

neoptelos, plz re read my first post, i was still writing it when you replied...
Reread plz

[Oglethorpe1983]

I disagree that Byzantium history is boring...actually its quite interesting. And as for the Byzantine's getting thier butts kicked by everyone who came after them...just remember it was the Byzantines that halted the spread of Islam/Turks for a long time... While ultimatly crushed in 1453... the Eastern empire prevented the spread of Islam into Europe for almost 600 years

Not to mention the fact at that its peak the size of the Eastern empire grew to a size that rivaled Imperial Rome

[Odovacar]

While Byzant's history is interesting I really dont like much byzantian historical persons. Maybe Heraclius.

While I have my favs even among french kings, I could never befriend Byzant. Love to read about Byzant, but I automatically jitter for their enemies, save when they fight against muslims...

Maybe because they were our enemies

[Georgy Zhukov]

Maybe its because the glory days of Augustus and Trajan are over, and we don't like read about the last vestiges of this prized empire, slowly stagnating, and collapsing.

[Stalins Ghost]

The reason is simple. Classics/Ancient History is a seperate branch of scholarship to Medieval - and thus Byzantine history. This is often also incorporated into the wider "history" field, where Classics is not. Roman and classical Greek studies are simply a field unto themselves.

The role of Byzantine history is very different too. It is by no means a less rich and interesting period/region, but its impact on the world is lesser. While politically influential, Byzantine affairs gradually had less and less cultural and social impact on the West, and by the 13th century, it is perhaps fair to say that it was now the West that influenced the East more (though not to say it was by any means not unique unto itself). Yes much of our ancient Greek knowledge is born to us thanks to the Byzantines, but it was the Roman texts that provided the bedrock into which the Greek augmented. Byzantine culture specifically was being pushed out of the West and was generally (though gradually) seen as inferior (take, for example, Vasari's scathing criticism of Byzantine art which took generations for his artistic innovators to phase out).

On a more general note, not to try to belittle the achievements of the Byzantine Empire, but where Rome was simply the crumbled foundation upon which the West was built, Byzantium was another increasingly minor player on the Medieval stage, despite many successful periods which prolongued its importance.