Byzantine role in world history

[Manuel Komnenos]

Dear TWC members, historiophiles and Byzantophiles.
I am a student interested in Byzantine history. However, recently I became interested in so called big, or world history, the one that is interconnecting all world civilization together. However one question still puzzles me.
I would like to ask you this question, if I may. Can we call Byzantium a ''world civilization''. If yes (and I hope so) what is for u Byzantine role in world history?
I thanks in advance for your answers

[bushbush]

well, a civilization's biggest role in history is first and always, its own very existence. After all, human civilization as a whole is made of all the different civilizations; human history is that of the history of all the different civilizations.

[PointOfViewGun]

Of course it is. It continued the Roman legacy, ensured survival of Christianity and a lot more.

[Stavroforos]

Byzantium was to the Muslims what Gondor was to Mordor.

Minus the winning part.

[PointOfViewGun]

Byzantium was to the Muslims what Gondor was to Mordor.

Minus the winning part.

That's a rather troublesome metaphor for this as well as inaccurate.
Gondor was very weak. Mordor was very powerful.
Byzantium was powerful but declining. Muslims not that strong but rising.
Gondor was good but corrupt. Mordor was simply evil.
Byzantium was hardly good and corrupt. Muslims were not evil.
Countrymen were running away from Mordor to Gondor.
Cities were preferring Muslim rule rather than Byzantium rule.

[Stavroforos]

That's a rather troublesome metaphor for this as well as inaccurate.
Gondor was very weak. Mordor was very powerful.
Byzantium was powerful but declining. Muslims not that strong but rising.
Gondor was good but corrupt. Mordor was simply evil.
Byzantium was hardly good and corrupt. Muslims were not evil.
Countrymen were running away from Mordor to Gondor.
Cities were preferring Muslim rule rather than Byzantium rule.

It's not a literal example with an exact comparison.

The armies of the Muslim conquests were initially very strong as well, as were the armies of the later Ottomans.

Byzantium is famous for being corrupt while still being the heart of Eastern Christianity.

[conon394]

Stavroforos is correct (and I like his example) people in WE can talk up the Franks pathetic effort against a minor Moorish incursion but its Byzantium that stopped Islam from surging across Europe. Everyone is free to value that as he or she will but it is a profound effect.

[Habelo]

Stavroforos is correct (and I like his example) people in WE can talk up the Franks pathetic effort against a minor Moorish incursion but its Byzantium that stopped Islam from surging across Europe. Everyone is free to value that as he or she will but it is a profound effect.

I would not see any logic for warlords to embrace islam when they already have embraced christianity to be their new tool of power.

christianity also brought alot of technology to germanic warlords so that the finest warrior of the world got modern equipment. So if you meant that muslims would take anything with military force... GL.

[Stavroforos]

I would not see any logic for warlords to embrace islam when they already have embraced christianity to be their new tool of power.

christianity also brought alot of technology to germanic warlords so that the finest warrior of the world got modern equipment. So if you meant that muslims would take anything with military force... GL.

...I want to know if I'm the only one who didn't make any sense of this post.

[Manco]

Stavroforos is correct (and I like his example) people in WE can talk up the Franks pathetic effort against a minor Moorish incursion but its Byzantium that stopped Islam from surging across Europe. Everyone is free to value that as he or she will but it is a profound effect.

Why call the Franks pathetic? It's only normal that the Byzantines faced the Muslims more, since the Franks didn't have any borders with Muslim states and the Byzantines bordered several major ones
That's like calling the Chinese weaklings because they never defeated the Vikings.

[Stavroforos]

Why call the Franks pathetic? It's only normal that the Byzantines faced the Muslims more, since the Franks didn't have any borders with Muslim states and the Byzantines bordered several major ones
That's like calling the Chinese weaklings because they never defeated the Vikings.

I think he's talking about how some people think that a Frankish army defeating a Muslim raiding party in France was some sort of huge major event which stopped the Muslims from ever coming to Europe.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

He does have a point. Franks tend to be hailed as saving Europe in Poitters while its fate was beeing decided on the Theodosian walls far and far away.

As for Byzantium's role in world history, preserving knowledge, passing it over to the west fueling the Renaissance, even serve as a administration model for major empires and kingdoms to come.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Byzies? Well they kept Europe safe for almost 1000 years, without ERE Europe would have been conquered by the Muslims very early.
The Byzantines held the Arabs/turks until Europe was well developed and established.

[Hansa]

Stavroforos is correct (and I like his example) people in WE can talk up the Franks pathetic effort against a minor Moorish incursion but its Byzantium that stopped Islam from surging across Europe. Everyone is free to value that as he or she will but it is a profound effect.

In all fairness, the Byzzies themselves are to blame here. I mean come on, of course Western Europeans talk up Martel, he is afterall nicked ''The Hammer''. The Byzzies have less cool names such as Leo III, if he had named himself ''Leo the Anvil'' I am sure that he would have gotten more attention.

Unless I am mistaken Poitiers wasn't even that important, as the Moors would have run out of steam and been driven south of the Pyrenees anyways, but I guess all options are also open regarding Moslem expansion into Europe if the walls of Constantinople hadn't stood in their way either.

[antaeus]

there's plenty in this forum about byzantium... hit the search for detailed discussions!

as a basic start point.. byzantium as a world civilisation?

it was an extension of greco-roman classical civilisation, linking the medieval world to this history directly, continuing traditions and maintaining governmental institutions which go back to the ancient world.

it was a bridge between eastern and western civilisations, not just fighting, or stopping islam, but fostering trade and the transfer of knowledge and ideas - a lot more of it's history was spent trading ideas and wealth with islam than was spent fighting.

i'm not sure if i totally agree with the concept of world civilisations as such... but byzantium certainly was an important civilisation - even if it's most important role was as a bridge.

[Lysimachos11]

it was a bridge between eastern and western civilisations, not just fighting, or stopping islam, but fostering trade and the transfer of knowledge and ideas - a lot more of it's history was spent trading ideas and wealth with islam than was spent fighting.

i'm not sure if i totally agree with the concept of world civilisations as such... but byzantium certainly was an important civilisation - even if it's most important role was as a bridge.

Wrong, the Arabs copied a lot from the Byzantines, notably taking over their economic system they put in place in Antiquity in Egypt and the Levant, but the Byzantines received nothing back from the Arabs. Almost the entire history was spent fighting Islam, not trading or anything, where did you get that idea? The Arabs created Emirates on the borderlands between the Islamic dominated regions and Byzantine regions with the sole purpose of looting and pillaging Byzantine "infidel" lands. Milete and Kalikala (Erzerum) are examples of such Emirates. Countless Djihads were called for the destruction of the Infidel Empire.

Byzantium was not a bridge, but as others have pointed out a concrete wall that stopped Arabic Islam from getting a hold of Christian Europe. Even in Italy the Byzantines helped expel Arabic pirate nests. For most of the Middle Ages, Christian contact with Islam was the same as with the Vikings, Arab pirates constantly attacked undefended villages all over Southern Europe.

Anyway, Byzantium was certainly a world power, but some scholars have called it peripheral to the Islamic Empire and I tend to agree. After the rich provinces of Egypt and the Levant were lost, these provinces kept their wealthy course under Islam while Constantinople fell outside and lost most of its wealth. In the 8th and 9th centuries therefore, the Islamic lands were much wealthier than the areas under Byzantine control (the Arabs had taken over Late Roman tax institutions etc., which were preserved in the Byzantine state as well). Another indication of Byzantium being to some degree peripheral is the fact that military initiative lay for most of the 7th to 10th centuries with the Arabs, with the Byzantines only capable of reacting (and often very succesfully, but reacting nonetheless).

[hindov]

military initiative lay for most of the 7th to 10th centuries with the Arabs, with the Byzantines only capable of reacting (and often very succesfully, but reacting nonetheless).

This is true but the Arabs were not the only threat of the period. As you already pointed out the Byzantines had to fight in Italy, also in the Balkans against the Bulgarian kingdom not to mention some Rus'ians attempts against Constantinople. The same period corresponds with the iconoclasm crisis which push the Empire in turmoil. Nevertheless, after a long period of reorganization the Byzantines were able to take the counter-offensive during the reign Of Nikephor Phocas and his successors John Tzimiskes and Basile II.

But to answer at OP the answer is obvious, YES. Not because Byzantium was a wall against another civilization but because its cultural model spreads over a great area.

[spanish_emperor]

@Lysimachos11
Yes true muslims did adopt many greek discovery. However, Islamic mathematicians are most famed for their work on algebra, number theory and number systems, they also made considerable contributions to geometry, trigonometry and mathematical astronomy. So if you were suggesting Christian nations were the sole discoverors of of all ancient scientific discoveries then you would be wrong.

[Lysimachos11]

@Lysimachos11
Yes true muslims did adopt many greek discovery. However, Islamic mathematicians are most famed for their work on algebra, number theory and number systems, they also made considerable contributions to geometry, trigonometry and mathematical astronomy. So if you were suggesting Christian nations were the sole discoverors of of all ancient scientific discoveries then you would be wrong.

Not suggesting that, as most of classic Greek discoveries were done by Pagans. However, the Islamic Golden Age of science, as well as its economic success was completely building on Late Roman (Byzantine) Christian institutions. The Arabs conquered areas were science was already advancing, and this would have continued regardless of Christian or Muslim overlords. The trend for these advancements started under Christian overlordship and continued under Muslim tolerancy by both Muslim and Christian scientists. As time progressed and Muslim tolerancy decreased, so did scientific advancement. So it remains dubious to credit these advancements in mathematics etc. to Islam.

[conon394]

...I want to know if I'm the only one who didn't make any sense of this post.

My post post??? I think its obvious you can read a lot ink spilled over how profound Charles Martel was - in a vacuum - no mention of the fact Byzantium was actually facing the main axis of Islamic expansion.