The Byzantines

[ZeaLitY]

I've really come to admire the Byzantines' example in history. They virtually sustained high civilization for much of the Dark Ages and most of the Medieval period. Their armies were professional and their civil life was rich, often provoking spite from those who had never eaten with forks to the west. Their leaders include many great men in their ranks, whose influence affected considerations all across the continent by lesser rulers (though their system was a little too dependent on the emperor, meaning one invalid could ruin the entire empire). The Crusades were borne entirely out of a Byzantine request to the Pope to send a modest force to help drive back the Muslims. And by sitting implacably at the crossroads of Asia Minor and Eastern Europe, they proved a long-lasting obstacle to Islamic expansionism. When the Empire was stretched thin, the Byzantines were able to rely on some of the finest military tactics and intelligence of the age, as Byzantine commanders and soldiers valued intellect and discipline over the impetuous bravery of Western knights. These guys really seem to be the high point of life during that entire historical period. After having to learn about Western Europe and petty squabbles so much in history classes, it's a little refreshing to read about ordered and civilized life in Constantinople. These guys had class. And here's another tidbit I found while reading about their armies:

Despite the importance the Byzantine Empire (or Ρωμανία, as it called itself) attached to its position as the defender of true, orthodox Christianity against Muslim and Catholic alike, it is worth noting that the Empire never developed or understood the concept of a "holy war." Its neighbours' concepts of Jihad and Crusade seemed to it gross perversions of scripture or simple excuses for looting and destruction. Emperors, generals and military theorists alike found war to be a failing of governance and political relations, to be avoided whenever possible. Only wars waged defensively or to avenge a wrong could in any sense be considered just, and in such cases the Byzantines felt that God would protect them.

~

It's too bad the Byzantines didn't survive in some form to the modern age, even if it were a simple island nation in Rhodes or Cyprus. To have the heir and bloodline of the Roman Empire still kicking in the 21st century would be interesting.

[grey_the_angel]

I've really come to admire the Byzantines' example in history. They virtually sustained high civilization for much of the Dark Ages and most of the Medieval period. Their armies were professional and their civil life was rich, often provoking spite from those who had never eaten with forks to the west. Their leaders include many great men in their ranks, whose influence affected considerations all across the continent by lesser rulers (though their system was a little too dependent on the emperor, meaning one invalid could ruin the entire empire). The Crusades were borne entirely out of a Byzantine request to the Pope to send a modest force to help drive back the Muslims. And by sitting implacably at the crossroads of Asia Minor and Eastern Europe, they proved a long-lasting obstacle to Islamic expansionism. When the Empire was stretched thin, the Byzantines were able to rely on some of the finest military tactics and intelligence of the age, as Byzantine commanders and soldiers valued intellect and discipline over the impetuous bravery of Western knights. These guys really seem to be the high point of life during that entire historical period. After having to learn about Western Europe and petty squabbles so much in history classes, it's a little refreshing to read about ordered and civilized life in Constantinople. These guys had class. And here's another tidbit I found while reading about their armies:

Despite the importance the Byzantine Empire (or Ρωμανία, as it called itself) attached to its position as the defender of true, orthodox Christianity against Muslim and Catholic alike, it is worth noting that the Empire never developed or understood the concept of a "holy war." Its neighbours' concepts of Jihad and Crusade seemed to it gross perversions of scripture or simple excuses for looting and destruction. Emperors, generals and military theorists alike found war to be a failing of governance and political relations, to be avoided whenever possible. Only wars waged defensively or to avenge a wrong could in any sense be considered just, and in such cases the Byzantines felt that God would protect them.

~

It's too bad the Byzantines didn't survive in some form to the modern age, even if it were a simple island nation in Rhodes or Cyprus. To have the heir and bloodline of the Roman Empire still kicking in the 21st century would be interesting.

and now they are nothing more but a memory to the ultra fanatical chirstans who want everything not related to god banned.

[ZeaLitY]

Well, there was a bad attitude by mainstream Western civilization towards the Byzantines until "recently," probably a result of spite for their culture that came from the Middle Ages. And the Crusades did contribute to the fall of Byzantium in 1204, when they stopped in Constantinople and seized the city, effectively driving the Emperor out (the Byzantines later recaptured it). But the downfall of Constantinople is a result of a Turkish assault and the inefficiency of the Byzantine leaders at the time. I'm just mad the Turks renamed it "Istanbul." What the hell is that? Constantinople is hopelessly cool. Istanbul just means "the city." No respect, I say!

And a really important event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Arab_siege_of_Constantinople

[Sentenal]

I first learned of the Byzantine Empire when I was in middle school, I believe.  Suprisingly, I learned about them from a video game, Age of Empires 2.  Not to go on another tangent, but that game helped me out alot before I got to World History.

The Byzantine Empire had always been my favorite of old cultures.  It was part of the Roman Empire, then it was the Eastern Roman Empire.  After Rome had fallen, they developed their own blend of Roman-Greek culture.  I also was very interested in the General under Justinian, Belsarius (this how you spell it?  I can hardly remmber).  Was a shame Constantanople fell to the Turks.

[GreenGannon]

Istanbul? Constantinople?

Anyone else feel a song coming on?

Istanbul was Constantinople
Now its Istanbul not Constantinople
Been a long time gone Constantinople
Now a Turkish delight
on a moonlight night.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Ah the Byzantine. Pretty fucking awesome. But now we have Turkish Delights. And kebabs. Oh well.

[Daniel Krispin]

Despite the importance the Byzantine Empire (or Ρωμανία, as it called itself) attached to its position as the defender of true, orthodox Christianity against Muslim and Catholic alike, it is worth noting that the Empire never developed or understood the concept of a "holy war." Its neighbours' concepts of Jihad and Crusade seemed to it gross perversions of scripture or simple excuses for looting and destruction.

A pity that such righteous folk should fall. It IS a perversion of scripture.

Emperors, generals and military theorists alike found war to be a failing of governance and political relations, to be avoided whenever possible. Only wars waged defensively or to avenge a wrong could in any sense be considered just, and in such cases the Byzantines felt that God would protect them.

Hmmm... I didn't realize that they called themselves Romania.

But as for their military, when they did fight, they had the remnants of higher military technology with them. Say, Greek Fire. And when the city fell, the emperor himself fought in the streets with his army until overcome. No cowardice from that ruler, eh? But come to think of it, I actually know very little about them compared to most other things in history - moreover, I almost never hear of them. Odd, considering they stood, as you say, at such a crossroads of places. It occupied that strategic area that Xerxes crossed to invade Greece, and near to where Troy stood even before that. I really should read up on them, now that you've mentioned them, as they are indeed a fascinating group - and one I know so little about. 

But it would probably be best to call the city by its first name of Byzantium. Not named after an emperor, or any successive conquerers, but after the name by which it was founded under the early Greek colonists.

[ZeaLitY]

Good idea. Constantinople is another renaming like Istanbul.

The Wikipedia article notes a historical bias against the Byzantines, and addresses some of it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derogatory_use_of_%22Byzantine%22 . They sort of speculate that this olden bias is what's kept the true role of Byzantium from coming into play more often in history research.

[Daniel Krispin]

Here's ZeaLitY, since you like the Byzantines... a picture of the fortress-city of Mystras, which was the administrative centre of the late empire, after it had retaken Greece from the Franks. At the summit is the Frankish fortress constructed in the 1200s, whilst all around are the ruins of the old city built after the hill was taken. It lasted as the last vanguard of the Byzantines until it fell to the Turks. Apparently, many of the philosophers and artists who lived there went on to Italy and played influential roles in the development of the Italian Renissance. This is a picture my father took when he and I were there a few weeks ago. I don't think I saw a more impressive ruin in my entire European trip. The picture looks up the hill, and you can see a Byzantine church in the distance.

[ZeaLitY]

Were you able to go up the hill, or was it fenced in?

[Daniel Krispin]

Totally open, the whole thing. The rare small area was closed off (I think because the ground was unstable here or there), but 99% was open, including that Frankish fortress. I myself stood at the very summit, looking down over the Spartan plain, and walked what remained of the battlements.

[Shadow_Dragon]

What's the order?

Byzantium -> Constantine moves capital to Byzantium and renames it Constantinople -> Rome splits and Byzantine Empire forms -> Turks take Constantinople and rename it Istanbul

Isn't that right? Then why would they name the new Byzantine Empire based on the capital, yet still call it Constantinople and not dename it back to Byzantium?

[deniz2099]

I'm just mad the Turks renamed it "Istanbul." What the hell is that? Constantinople is hopelessly cool. Istanbul just means "the city." No respect, I say!

And a really important event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Arab_siege_of_Constantinople

Hey please watch your words, I'm a Turk..!  Turks always respect to the other nations' every property(if it's not related with them in a bad way). Then what the hell Constantinopole means, give me an explanation..! 

[ZeaLitY]

What's the order?

Byzantium -> Constantine moves capital to Byzantium and renames it Constantinople -> Rome splits and Byzantine Empire forms -> Turks take Constantinople and rename it Istanbul

Isn't that right? Then why would they name the new Byzantine Empire based on the capital, yet still call it Constantinople and not dename it back to Byzantium?

One of history's little quirks. Scholars in the 19th century started calling it Byzantium, and the term copied over. Actual members of the empire would have called themselves some variation of Romans.

Constantinople just sounds cool.

[Daniel Krispin]

I'm just mad the Turks renamed it "Istanbul." What the hell is that? Constantinople is hopelessly cool. Istanbul just means "the city." No respect, I say!

And a really important event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Arab_siege_of_Constantinople

Hey please watch your words, I'm a Turk..!  Turks always respect to the other nations' every property(if it's not related with them in a bad way). Then what the hell Constantinopole means, give me an explanation..! 

I'm assuming the city means 'city of' (being an anglisization of polis, probably), and the beginning is from the name Constantine.

However, you must remember, in times past, the Turks were invaders of Europe. They took over, and occupied Greece, for several hundred years, for example. They also dominated the area of the Levant (that's why when the Turks declared a jihad against the allied powers in World War I T. H. Lawrence was able to rallly the arab tribes against them.) Greece also fought for their independance from Turkish rule. But that's just how it is. I mean, think about how many people have controlled the area near Istanbul. Lastly the Turks, of course; then back the Byzantines, the Romans, the Greeks, and before them the Trojans (though I'm not certain who they are. Maybe a Semitic group. Perhaps they were under the Hittite sphere of influence.) Anyway, you shouldn't say that Turks respect others' sovereignty, as no nation ever has respected others' property. Every empire that has lasted longer than a generation has been a conquerer, and the Turks are certainly included in that. Why otherwise would they have been so feared by central Europe in the middle ages?