A new history of Byzantium reveals the inner workings of a late antique empire(thecritic.co.uk)
thecritic.co.uk
A new history of Byzantium reveals the inner workings of a late antique empire
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/march-2022/wonders-and-warnings-from-the-ancient-world/
93 comments
The Ottoman Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire, not the end of it.
If you were a Greek living in the Byzantine Empire – or as they described themselves, a Roman living in the Roman Empire – the Ottomans were just the new Roman Emperors. The Roman bureaucracy, civil institutions, and daily life changed very little.
People don't normally acknowledge it because both the Holy Roman Empire and the Russian Empire wanted to be recognised as successors to the Roman Empire, but the truth is that the Ottomans were the real successors.
Some info on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_success...
If you were a Greek living in the Byzantine Empire – or as they described themselves, a Roman living in the Roman Empire – the Ottomans were just the new Roman Emperors. The Roman bureaucracy, civil institutions, and daily life changed very little.
People don't normally acknowledge it because both the Holy Roman Empire and the Russian Empire wanted to be recognised as successors to the Roman Empire, but the truth is that the Ottomans were the real successors.
Some info on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_success...
>The Ottoman Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire, not the end of it
Well, it was a conquest, from different peoples, with different civilization, and different religion, and different laws and government structures.
That's pretty much the definition of the end of an empire.
>If you were a Greek living in the Byzantine Empire – or as they described themselves, a Roman living in the Roman Empire – the Ottomans were just the new Roman Emperors.
Not really. There are countless laments for the fall of the empire from the "Greeks living in the Byzantine Empire" at the era, all the way from folk sayings and stories, to scholars, and tons of insurrection against the invaders after the fall of Constantinople.
This idea of the "random masses" that have no sense of belonging and identity, and just change a rule after a different people conquer their lands and impose their rule is dehumanizing and ludicrous, doubly so for an empire and a civilization that last for a millenium...
Well, it was a conquest, from different peoples, with different civilization, and different religion, and different laws and government structures.
That's pretty much the definition of the end of an empire.
>If you were a Greek living in the Byzantine Empire – or as they described themselves, a Roman living in the Roman Empire – the Ottomans were just the new Roman Emperors.
Not really. There are countless laments for the fall of the empire from the "Greeks living in the Byzantine Empire" at the era, all the way from folk sayings and stories, to scholars, and tons of insurrection against the invaders after the fall of Constantinople.
This idea of the "random masses" that have no sense of belonging and identity, and just change a rule after a different people conquer their lands and impose their rule is dehumanizing and ludicrous, doubly so for an empire and a civilization that last for a millenium...
Surely this is a Ship of Theseus situation, isn't it? There may have been little change from year to year, but a red-blooded Jupiter-Optimus-Maximus-fearing classical Roman citizen transplanted into the future would have been horrified at various moments, first when the Republic became an Empire, again when Christianity took over, when the Empire was split in the Tetrarchy, and when it became apparent that the Greek-speaking half was all that was left. Sure, there's a continuous line of succession much later, but for Gaius Quinctilius Budweiser, I think the traditional break when the West finally gave up is as good as any.
> I think the traditional break when the West finally gave up is as good as any.
Except that the Greek-speaking part was as Roman as the Latin-speaking part in culture, heritage, bureaucracy, governance, and self-identity. The later Western European historians' designation of the East as "Byzantine" (read: not "real" Romans) is much motivated by the West Europe's desire to see themselves as intellectual descendants of the Roman Empire (n.b. Italian Renaissance and Classicism).
Except that the Greek-speaking part was as Roman as the Latin-speaking part in culture, heritage, bureaucracy, governance, and self-identity. The later Western European historians' designation of the East as "Byzantine" (read: not "real" Romans) is much motivated by the West Europe's desire to see themselves as intellectual descendants of the Roman Empire (n.b. Italian Renaissance and Classicism).
Maybe my perception is a little off, but I think of the Romans as having outsourced their "high" culture from the very moment they could afford it--formal education, medicine, and theater were for Greek slaves to do. A dignified Roman was more suited to the manly pursuits of farming, conquest, and engineering.
>Except that the Greek-speaking part was as Roman as the Latin-speaking part in culture, heritage, bureaucracy, governance, and self-identity.
Not that much. It was roman in leadership and had the roman legal structures, but it was always the area of prior Greece and the Hellenistic kindgoms, which had millenia of history and culture all of its own (to the point of the Roman's saying that when they conquered it millitarily, it conquered them culturally).
Not that much. It was roman in leadership and had the roman legal structures, but it was always the area of prior Greece and the Hellenistic kindgoms, which had millenia of history and culture all of its own (to the point of the Roman's saying that when they conquered it millitarily, it conquered them culturally).
That's also true of the areas in Southern Italy, Sicily, North Africa, and Illyria. Nothing about the East differentiated it, and the Romans saying that it conquered them culturally were the same as the Americans now lamenting that the US has seen cultural changes. "Oh no! You're not sending consular armies out every year to acquire new territory as your sole cultural identity!" was the complaint.
Completing the conquest of the Mediterranean basin and being left bordering only states against whom the Romans never had any particular success, the Sahara, (Parthians/Sassanids) or holding the line against rotating groups of peoples pushed further west in the Balkans and Germania left the Roman state without obvious paths to expansion. That does not mean that Hellenistic states "conquered them culturally".
If you think the West was some unified area with "Latin-speaking" culture, heritage, bureaucracy, and self-identity, you'd need to write a thesis-length paper justifying it no matter what century. Even the Italian peninsula was none of those things until long after the establishment of the Principate, at which point wealth had already precluded the existence of men like Cincinnatus.
Completing the conquest of the Mediterranean basin and being left bordering only states against whom the Romans never had any particular success, the Sahara, (Parthians/Sassanids) or holding the line against rotating groups of peoples pushed further west in the Balkans and Germania left the Roman state without obvious paths to expansion. That does not mean that Hellenistic states "conquered them culturally".
If you think the West was some unified area with "Latin-speaking" culture, heritage, bureaucracy, and self-identity, you'd need to write a thesis-length paper justifying it no matter what century. Even the Italian peninsula was none of those things until long after the establishment of the Principate, at which point wealth had already precluded the existence of men like Cincinnatus.
This is completely arbitrary. Both from the sense that, as you mentioned, there are a number of inflection points prior to that, and in "Greek-speaking" being distinctive at all.
If the classical Roman citizen weren't horrified at the organizational changes under Diocletian, or the difference in response between Adrianopole and Cannae, or moving the Imperial seat, or Romanized barbarians leading legionary armies (all of which were 100+ years before the fall of the west), they'd keep going.
The fact that the population in the East spoke Greek (and Syraic, and Aramaic, and a bunch of other languages) is a meaningless distinction. The West never truly had a formalized language anyway, at least among the citizens. The East had the same history, the same institutions, the same government
If the classical Roman citizen weren't horrified at the organizational changes under Diocletian, or the difference in response between Adrianopole and Cannae, or moving the Imperial seat, or Romanized barbarians leading legionary armies (all of which were 100+ years before the fall of the west), they'd keep going.
The fact that the population in the East spoke Greek (and Syraic, and Aramaic, and a bunch of other languages) is a meaningless distinction. The West never truly had a formalized language anyway, at least among the citizens. The East had the same history, the same institutions, the same government
I think the same arguments could be applied to the USA
Can you imagine a USA where half spoke Spanish, half English and less than 1% both?
I don't think your wikipedia link supports the assertion that institutions and bureaucracy changed very little. Even 'continuation' is fairly shaky since, as the page itself points out, unlike the subsequent Ottoman one, the Byzantine empire wasn't much of an empire by the time the Ottomans took Constantinople (and for quite a stretch before that).
The Ottomans were already ruling most of the Byzantine empire by the time they took Constantinople.
I think it's a little difficult to say objectively what the truth is, but I'm here in Istanbul now and it doesn't really seem that the Turks think of themselves as hostile occupiers. I would say the vibe in the city and attitude among the Turks is more spiritual successors of Byzantium, rather than an occupying force.
I think the fact that they conquered Byzantium is perceived more as legitimizing their rule, since the Romans at that point were weak enough to fall. In any case, it's more symbolic than anything, because the Ottomans had already taken most of the important stuff before and really just needed the city for the straight.
I think the fact that they conquered Byzantium is perceived more as legitimizing their rule, since the Romans at that point were weak enough to fall. In any case, it's more symbolic than anything, because the Ottomans had already taken most of the important stuff before and really just needed the city for the straight.
They are not hostile occupiers any more,Istanbul has been Ottoman for many centuries.
But the city was called Constantinople. Istanbul in Greek phonetics means "We are in the city” and was renamed after the capture. It is Ottoman, not part of the Byzantine tradition but Ottomans promoted a continuity narrative without any of the preexisting thousand year old Greek Christian traditions. Those populations had to be forcibly removed or changed faith up until the 1950’s.
But the city was called Constantinople. Istanbul in Greek phonetics means "We are in the city” and was renamed after the capture. It is Ottoman, not part of the Byzantine tradition but Ottomans promoted a continuity narrative without any of the preexisting thousand year old Greek Christian traditions. Those populations had to be forcibly removed or changed faith up until the 1950’s.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by your explanation, what traditions, who is forcibly converted until 1950's?
I mean the Byzantine folk and religious traditions do not exist in the current owners. There were extensive pogroms and population exchanges. Although Istanbul in particular was exempt from those based on treaties, in reality the treaties were ignored.
Regarding the last major events in the 50s I have found this, don’t know how detailed it is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_pogrom
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_pogrom
If you start looking into 1000 years history of the area you will find maybe worse incidents happening from the "Byzantine folk / religious traditions" side as well, I don't think this one sided implications are warranted.
> The Roman bureaucracy, civil institutions, and daily life changed very little.
From what I’ve read the bureaucracy was entirely replaced by the Sultan’s court. Daily life might not have changed much for the Roman in the street, but the Res Publica was gone for good.
From what I’ve read the bureaucracy was entirely replaced by the Sultan’s court. Daily life might not have changed much for the Roman in the street, but the Res Publica was gone for good.
A big clue that a culture shift has occurred is when the language changes. It isn't total, but it's big. If Istanbul residents spoke some Romance language, that case would be more convincing.
This is normal behavior.
Some early Roman emperors also dreamed of becoming like Alexander the Great.
Today Putin dreams of becoming like Napoleon Bonaparte.
> helped kindle the European Renaissance as we know it.
The italian renaissance started in the 14th century for sure and maybe even in 13th century depending on who you ask. Though the exact date can be disputed, nobody disputes the fact that it started long before the fall of the byzantine empire in the mid 15th century.
And the italian renaissance had more to do with direct trade opening up between europe and china/india/etc via the mongol empire ( who had an indirect role in the creation of the ottoman empire ) than anything else. Prior to the mongol empire, they had to no direct trade with either asian centers. Instead they depended on the arabs/persians who acted as middle-men between china/india and europe. It's why we call numbers, Arabic numerals, while the arabs themselves call it Hindu numerals. The arabs got the numbers from india and we got it from the arabs. It's also why europeans used to call china cathay, which is what the arabs called china.
Trade increases wealth. Wealth increase arts/humanities. This is true for italy, india, china, europe, united states, mesopotamia, ancient egypt, etc. It's like how spring rain brings about floral bloom. The italians started getting ridiculously wealthy in the 13th/14th. And like magic, the renaissance was born.
Interesting tidbit, the mongol empire had a significant but indirect part in the "discovery" of the americas by columbus.
The italian renaissance started in the 14th century for sure and maybe even in 13th century depending on who you ask. Though the exact date can be disputed, nobody disputes the fact that it started long before the fall of the byzantine empire in the mid 15th century.
And the italian renaissance had more to do with direct trade opening up between europe and china/india/etc via the mongol empire ( who had an indirect role in the creation of the ottoman empire ) than anything else. Prior to the mongol empire, they had to no direct trade with either asian centers. Instead they depended on the arabs/persians who acted as middle-men between china/india and europe. It's why we call numbers, Arabic numerals, while the arabs themselves call it Hindu numerals. The arabs got the numbers from india and we got it from the arabs. It's also why europeans used to call china cathay, which is what the arabs called china.
Trade increases wealth. Wealth increase arts/humanities. This is true for italy, india, china, europe, united states, mesopotamia, ancient egypt, etc. It's like how spring rain brings about floral bloom. The italians started getting ridiculously wealthy in the 13th/14th. And like magic, the renaissance was born.
Interesting tidbit, the mongol empire had a significant but indirect part in the "discovery" of the americas by columbus.
>> helped kindle the European Renaissance as we know it.
> The italian renaissance started in the 14th century for sure and maybe even in 13th century depending on who you ask. Though the exact date can be disputed, nobody disputes the fact that it started long before the fall of the byzantine empire in the mid 15th century.
The early "Renaissance" was Latin, the Renaissance proper was Greek. That's all you need to know to figure out when (1397+), where (Florence+), and how it started. The seed is more important than the soil.
> The italian renaissance started in the 14th century for sure and maybe even in 13th century depending on who you ask. Though the exact date can be disputed, nobody disputes the fact that it started long before the fall of the byzantine empire in the mid 15th century.
The early "Renaissance" was Latin, the Renaissance proper was Greek. That's all you need to know to figure out when (1397+), where (Florence+), and how it started. The seed is more important than the soil.
"Interesting tidbit, the mongol empire had a significant but indirect part in the "discovery" of the americas by columbus."
So did the Ottomans. Their monopoly of the eastern routes caused the Western kingdoms to go the other direction.
So did the Ottomans. Their monopoly of the eastern routes caused the Western kingdoms to go the other direction.
The Ottomans did not get a monopoly on eastern routes until they conquered Mameluke Egypt in the early 1500s. Western European (particularly Portuguese) attempts to go "the other direction" started in the 1400s.
If you look at a changing map of the Eastern Roman Empire over time, like the Western Roman Empire, it "collapsed" well before it fell.
Many educated elites from Rome moved to Constantinople a century before Rome fell. ...and similarly, the most educated elites left Constantinople for northern Italy (and Russia!) before the Ottomans smashed down the walls over the preceding century.
Many educated elites from Rome moved to Constantinople a century before Rome fell. ...and similarly, the most educated elites left Constantinople for northern Italy (and Russia!) before the Ottomans smashed down the walls over the preceding century.
I'm kind of perplex but can understand why it's really hard for European people to admit that Renaissance in Europe has much to do with two concurrent Muslim Empires (Spain and Abbasid) rather than the remote Mongols. Also talking about Columbus discovery of America, I'd not be surprise if in the later years people found out that there were some of the crews are the force converted Jews and Muslim onboard based on Alhambra Decree that's being introduced exactly in the same year as the journey happened. The necessary technology for sustained shipping and navigation definitely from the Muslim Empire that preceeded the event.
Some fun facts, Muslim Empires also strecthed to the Italian Sicily Island (ultra Pharum) who ruled for few hundred years before it's later conquered by the Normans, who then later conquered the Britain [1]. Obviously this southern Italian empire is very much cosmopolitan not unlike the old day of Constantinople/Instanbul and modern day New York with probably the best hospitals in town [2].
If I want to guess this is the time Italian Renaissance started because of the superior way of life is happening right at their doorstep with a thriving community basically different in their mentality, religion, culture and lifestyle.
[1]Muslim conquest of Sicily:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Sicily
[2]Schola Medica Salernitana:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schola_Medica_Salernitana
Some fun facts, Muslim Empires also strecthed to the Italian Sicily Island (ultra Pharum) who ruled for few hundred years before it's later conquered by the Normans, who then later conquered the Britain [1]. Obviously this southern Italian empire is very much cosmopolitan not unlike the old day of Constantinople/Instanbul and modern day New York with probably the best hospitals in town [2].
If I want to guess this is the time Italian Renaissance started because of the superior way of life is happening right at their doorstep with a thriving community basically different in their mentality, religion, culture and lifestyle.
[1]Muslim conquest of Sicily:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Sicily
[2]Schola Medica Salernitana:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schola_Medica_Salernitana
The so-called pax mongolica:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Mongolica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Mongolica
Yes - it’s bizarre to think the Roman Empire almost made it to the Columbus voyages. Columbus would land in the Americas just 39 years after Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks… who would themselves make it all the way into the 1900’s and fight in World War I!
1492 was the year 7000 in the Byzantine calendar (started with the creation of the world). There was a religious “year 7000” happening in the Eastern world (Moscow, etc) just a Columbus was launching his ships.
One thing to note is that the Greek works likely could not have survived medieval Europe if they had left Constantinople a lot earlier. There were two great advantages to renaissance scholars:
1. The works were still in their original Greek (rather than translations into Latin done long ago, or the translations from Greek to Arabic (and then to Latin) that came in through moorish Spain).
2. Religious attitudes allowed the works to be studied close to their original form. Early Christians were basically of the opinion that if a book disagreed with the bible it was heresy and should be destroyed, and if it agreed with the bible it was unnecessary and could be destroyed. That was less the case in the eastern side of the church and of course a big exaggeration too: there were old Latin translations of eg Plato however they had been quite bastardised to conform with Christian theology (I understand Aristotle was a little less bastardised as early Christian theology was itself quite Aristotelian). By the renaissance less bastardisation was required (if translating to Latin rather than the vernacular).
Without being transferred so late to the west, the works may never have made it to modern times in such a complete form.
1. The works were still in their original Greek (rather than translations into Latin done long ago, or the translations from Greek to Arabic (and then to Latin) that came in through moorish Spain).
2. Religious attitudes allowed the works to be studied close to their original form. Early Christians were basically of the opinion that if a book disagreed with the bible it was heresy and should be destroyed, and if it agreed with the bible it was unnecessary and could be destroyed. That was less the case in the eastern side of the church and of course a big exaggeration too: there were old Latin translations of eg Plato however they had been quite bastardised to conform with Christian theology (I understand Aristotle was a little less bastardised as early Christian theology was itself quite Aristotelian). By the renaissance less bastardisation was required (if translating to Latin rather than the vernacular).
Without being transferred so late to the west, the works may never have made it to modern times in such a complete form.
Medieval Christians weren’t nearly as hostile to pagan works as you imply. Julius Caesar, Cicero, and Virgil were regularly copied and read. (And the enthusiasm with which Arabic translations of pagan Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy — and Muslim thinkers as well — were translated into Latin in the 12th Century certainly doesn’t reflect some “nothing but the Bible” mentality.)
The problem with Greek works is that they were no longer readable (since literacy in Greek disappeared with the fall of the Western Empire), and so there was no interest in copying them.
The problem with Greek works is that they were no longer readable (since literacy in Greek disappeared with the fall of the Western Empire), and so there was no interest in copying them.
> if a book disagreed with the bible it was heresy and should be destroyed, and if it agreed with the bible it was unnecessary and could be destroyed.
Not sure where you're getting this from, but it's suspiciously similar to this commentary by Islamic Caliph Omar, where he was talking about the books in the Library of Alexandria.
"Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of 'Amr ibn al-'As. Several later Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of Caliph Omar.[94][95] Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the thirteenth century, quotes Omar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."
Not sure where you're getting this from, but it's suspiciously similar to this commentary by Islamic Caliph Omar, where he was talking about the books in the Library of Alexandria.
"Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of 'Amr ibn al-'As. Several later Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of Caliph Omar.[94][95] Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the thirteenth century, quotes Omar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."
Note that the oldest version of that story is due to a Christian Arab writing centuries later, complaining about all the bad things Muslims have done. There's no credible evidence from a non-axe-grinding source that anything like that happened.
Not to mention the fact that the Library had ceased to exist by the 4th Century, long before Omar showed up.
(Though I agree with you that the original comment looks like a recycled version of the Omar story.)
Not to mention the fact that the Library had ceased to exist by the 4th Century, long before Omar showed up.
(Though I agree with you that the original comment looks like a recycled version of the Omar story.)
For sure, I should've mentioned that even the quote by Omar itself is suspect in terms of whether it was ever said, let alone whether it was Omar who had anything to do with the demise of the Library of Alexandria.
Fundamentalist extremists are found in every religion I guess.
I think you’re underestimating the deleterious effects of the Turkish naval domination of the Mediterranean on intellectual communication. The enlightenment was made possible by Lepanto.
Uh, no. The Enlightenment -- which was a phenomenon of Western and Central Europe, not the Mediterranean -- was in no way affected by Turkish naval control of the (Eastern) Mediterranean.
Uh, yes. The Near East, both before and after the Muslim conquests, was the most culturally, philosophically, artistically, and scientifically advanced region in western Eurasia if not the entire world. Turkey controlled both the overland and maritime trade routes. Given the high odds of ending up a galley slave or worse, there was little cultural exchange between West and East. The Battle of Lepanto smashed Turkish naval dominance and suddenly the West had easy access to trade with the East. The Enlightenment would probably never have happened and certainly not with the rapidity that it did were it not for access to all of that knowledge.
Uh, no.
1. You're way overestimating the wealth of the Near East in the time period we're talking about. If you look at Maddison's estimates of historical GDP (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P...), you can see that circa 1000, "Western Europe" had a GDP of about 10.9 billion (1990) USD, slightly below "West Asia's" 12.4 billion. But by 1500, Western Europe has ballooned 44.2 billion, while West Asia has fallen to 10.5 billion.
2. Italian merchants had regular access to the Near East throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, so "suddenly the West had easy access to trade with the East after Lepanto" is not even remotely true.
3. Lepanto's significance even in the context of the 16th Century Mediterranean is highly debatable; arguably, the most it did was to halt further westward expansion by the Ottomans, while they solidified their hold over the Eastern Mediterranean (they did, after all, rebuild their fleet within a year). See, e.g. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/head-head/how-important...
4. The most significant transfers of "knowledge" happened earlier, during the 12th Century Renaissance (translation of Arabic works and Arabic translations of Greek works) and the Italian Renaissance (translation of additional Greek works); continued transfer is evident in the apparent presence of 14th and 15th Century Arabic mathematical and astronomy texts in early 15th Century Italy, where they influenced Copernicus. And, of course, the transmission of other forms of knowledge and technology (compasses, paper, new agricultural products like citrus fruits, rice, and sugar, etc.) occurred throughout the period.
1. You're way overestimating the wealth of the Near East in the time period we're talking about. If you look at Maddison's estimates of historical GDP (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P...), you can see that circa 1000, "Western Europe" had a GDP of about 10.9 billion (1990) USD, slightly below "West Asia's" 12.4 billion. But by 1500, Western Europe has ballooned 44.2 billion, while West Asia has fallen to 10.5 billion.
2. Italian merchants had regular access to the Near East throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, so "suddenly the West had easy access to trade with the East after Lepanto" is not even remotely true.
3. Lepanto's significance even in the context of the 16th Century Mediterranean is highly debatable; arguably, the most it did was to halt further westward expansion by the Ottomans, while they solidified their hold over the Eastern Mediterranean (they did, after all, rebuild their fleet within a year). See, e.g. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/head-head/how-important...
4. The most significant transfers of "knowledge" happened earlier, during the 12th Century Renaissance (translation of Arabic works and Arabic translations of Greek works) and the Italian Renaissance (translation of additional Greek works); continued transfer is evident in the apparent presence of 14th and 15th Century Arabic mathematical and astronomy texts in early 15th Century Italy, where they influenced Copernicus. And, of course, the transmission of other forms of knowledge and technology (compasses, paper, new agricultural products like citrus fruits, rice, and sugar, etc.) occurred throughout the period.
Fun facts, do you know that the fall of Roman Byzantine Empire is prophesized in a reputable Islamic tradition? According to the tradition, the general who conquered Constantinople is the best general ever and eventually the title is held by the Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih. Also the fact that one of the first missions to conquer Constantinople is joined by Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, the claimed sahabah (friend) of prophet Muhammad that hosted him when he migrated to Madinah due to the hostility of his tribes in Mecca. Legend has it Abu Ayyub (at the old age of 90s) died just outside the great wall of Constanstinople during the unsuccesful tour.
Please stop the nonsense that the western world single handedly saved the Greek knowledge. Actually the Muslim scholars that performed most of the scavenging and translations to Arabic in addition to other significant knowledge contributions that later found their way to dark ages Europe, igniting their Renaissance as we know it. They did it because of the importance of knowledge and the fact that translation works are handsomely rewarded by the Caliphs with gold equivalent in book's weight. These massive Greek to Arabic translations and on top of that the more important new knowledge contributions (e.g. Khawarizmi, Avicenna, Averroes) works later found their way to Europe after the fall of Muslim Spain empire starting with the fall of Toledo (the knowledge and translation center) in the 11th CE. Most the Greek books and knowledge were lost by the literally burning of the books and libraries (e.g Alexandria library) by the later Roman Emperors.
Please stop the nonsense that the western world single handedly saved the Greek knowledge. Actually the Muslim scholars that performed most of the scavenging and translations to Arabic in addition to other significant knowledge contributions that later found their way to dark ages Europe, igniting their Renaissance as we know it. They did it because of the importance of knowledge and the fact that translation works are handsomely rewarded by the Caliphs with gold equivalent in book's weight. These massive Greek to Arabic translations and on top of that the more important new knowledge contributions (e.g. Khawarizmi, Avicenna, Averroes) works later found their way to Europe after the fall of Muslim Spain empire starting with the fall of Toledo (the knowledge and translation center) in the 11th CE. Most the Greek books and knowledge were lost by the literally burning of the books and libraries (e.g Alexandria library) by the later Roman Emperors.
I think they specifically said “helped”, you’re the one that said single-handedly. I didn’t think any of what he said was nonsense, I found it pretty fascinating, as I did yours. I doubt they meant anything inflammatory by it.
Is this statement make sense to you, "large set of manuscripts were brought by the great Plethon to Cosimo d’Medici. Marsilio Ficino’s translation of Greek classics into Latin—like the complete works of Plato and the Hermetica". This is just one single guy compared to the two Muslim empires that thrived on the Greek and other civilizations knowledge that really contributed to the Renaissance movement.
Plethon lived during 14th and 15th century before the fall of Byzantine empire and if you want to credit one guy it should be Averroes (Ibnu Rush) who lived in the 12th century, at least two centuries before Plethon. He was highly regarded by the western scholar as the next Philosopher after Aristotle but not so much in the muslim world. He definitely has access to the Greek works including by Plato and Aristotle. I would say his many translations, commentaries and original works of more than 100 books were instrumentals in re-awakening the western European interest in Greek thinkers, an area of study that widely has been abandoned after the fall of original Roman Empire (not Byzantine) [1]. These do not include the numerous Greek, Chinese and Indian translations, and further contributions of Abbasid empire's scholars (Averroes belongs to the Muslim Spain empire) that includes the well-known House of Wisdoms but later was burnt down in the 13th CE by the Mongols. It's said that the river in Baghdad turn into blue due to the inks of the disposed books. Some of the books managed to escape the utter destructions from copying and circulations in the Muslim Spain and other part of the Abbasid empire that really helped the Renaissance movement later on.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes
Plethon lived during 14th and 15th century before the fall of Byzantine empire and if you want to credit one guy it should be Averroes (Ibnu Rush) who lived in the 12th century, at least two centuries before Plethon. He was highly regarded by the western scholar as the next Philosopher after Aristotle but not so much in the muslim world. He definitely has access to the Greek works including by Plato and Aristotle. I would say his many translations, commentaries and original works of more than 100 books were instrumentals in re-awakening the western European interest in Greek thinkers, an area of study that widely has been abandoned after the fall of original Roman Empire (not Byzantine) [1]. These do not include the numerous Greek, Chinese and Indian translations, and further contributions of Abbasid empire's scholars (Averroes belongs to the Muslim Spain empire) that includes the well-known House of Wisdoms but later was burnt down in the 13th CE by the Mongols. It's said that the river in Baghdad turn into blue due to the inks of the disposed books. Some of the books managed to escape the utter destructions from copying and circulations in the Muslim Spain and other part of the Abbasid empire that really helped the Renaissance movement later on.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes
Among those who really made a difference, check out the Brethren of Purity. English translation of their encyclopedia is coming out this year. There is a ton of work needed in Arabic and not enough scholarship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_o...
But, yeah, I’ll stand up for old Marsilio’s influence any day. The story is amazing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_o...
But, yeah, I’ll stand up for old Marsilio’s influence any day. The story is amazing.
Thanks for the link, didn't know about it before. Amazing how this normal human beings like this one and Averroes can write volumes upon volumes of books and treatises during their lifetime wihout much help from the modern technology and the Internet. I cannot even write a single book so far, probably need to spend less time on HN I guess. Got to love this quote from the Encyclopedia "Turn from the sleep of negligence and the slumber of ignorance, for the world is a house of delusion and tribulations".
Regarding the origin of the Renaissance era please check my other comments on the potential root of the Italian Renaissance movement.
Regarding the origin of the Renaissance era please check my other comments on the potential root of the Italian Renaissance movement.
It's kind of a fantasy but I like to think Rome never truly disappeared. (and I don't mean that necessarily in an good or nostalgic way) A lot of what happens in Brazil, the US etc today is as if lifted straight out of the late republic. What's going on in Ukraine too is also history repeating itself. The examples are countless. Many of us, especially on a western forum like this, in many ways are Romans.
One could argue that "latino" is a person descending from Rome. This would include many Latin Americans, Italians, Spaniards, etc... even English.
People who speak a romance language definitely have a stronger connection than many but Latin was far from the only language of the Romans. Greek was used extensively in the West and East alike, and there were regional languages like Gaulish, Aramaic and many many others elsewhere. Many of those who did speak Latin did so as a second language, with strong accents etc. So in many ways what is Roman is more about mindset, culture, institutions, aesthetic preferences etc than language. (and pretty much all of the Western world carry on Roman versions of all of the above, for better or for worse :P)
Why was it hard for people in Western Europe to get Greek manuscripts before the fall of the Byzantine Empire? It's not that far from Rome to Athens. Seems like you could just ride down to Brundisium and then get on a boat, get to Athens and ask around. Before 1054 there wasn't an East-Wests schism so the clerics in Greece wouldn't be hostile.
Was the political situation really so chaotic and crazy that you couldn't take that trip? Or was no one interested?
Was the political situation really so chaotic and crazy that you couldn't take that trip? Or was no one interested?
No one was particularly interested. People in Constantinople didn’t even know what manuscripts they had! (The major extent Plato manuscripts fir instance are from the 9th-11th centuries, the so called Macedonian renaissance). Westerners became really interested in classical literature after about 1200. Works were preserved, but they often didn’t circulate, to the extent that in the 14th century, Petrarch was able to discover a lost letter of Cicero. As the Turks completed their conquest of the Byzantine empire, Greeks fleeing to west ransacked libraries to find books that would sell in the west, which was mostly Classical Greek, since westerners weren’t interest in Greek tgeologians of the 8th century!
Homer is an exception to this! There are almost a thousand Homeric manuscripts. There are 7 Plato manuscripts. Aristotle was significantly more popular, with almost 300 manuscripts, almost all from the west, and due to Byzantine originals starting in the 11th century
Do these Homeric manuscripts all come the Thrasyllus edition in Alexandria?
It’s crazy that every single one of Plato’s books survived.
It’s crazy that every single one of Plato’s books survived.
I think Plato had a bunch of manuscripts that weren't designed to be public facing that don't exist today. It was like he had stuff for the public, and then he had stuff only for his students. I imagine the tone and narrative voice would have been much different, and that he would have expected much more from his readers in these other works.
I like to joke that the world would be very different if we had Platos lecture notes and Aristotle’s dialogues (which were famous in antiquity)
The manuscripts weren't in Greece. These works were written centuries ago, many of them before the rise of the roman empire. As books were expensive back then, they would often be found in wealthy cities like Rome, Alexandria or Constantinople and often taken as spoils after conquests. The fall of the Western Roman empire additionally meant no one had time or resources to go collecting old dusty manuscripts, but the rising Arabic empires did. Later in the medieval period, notably after the crusades and moor conquest of spain, monks began (re)translating the arabic copies of these works, bringing them back west along with many other novel works, commentaries and inventions.
Wasn't Roman-era writing mostly on papyrus rather than parchment? As papyrus has a much shorter shelf life when stored in more humid climate like Europe (unlike in the desert where it stays intact), if people aren't actively copying them, anything written on papyrus just get lost.
Well there was also The Holy Roman Empire (Translatio imperii) following the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire and currently the See of Rome where the Pope holds title as bishop of Rome as just 1 of a handful of absolute monarchs recognized under international law.
>...the Roman Empire lasted until the 1400s, only to finally fall to the Ottoman Empire
The Byzantine empire was in decline for several centuries, starting with the Islamic expansion. By the time Constantinople fell to the Turks, it had been reduced to a city-state.
The Byzantine empire was in decline for several centuries, starting with the Islamic expansion. By the time Constantinople fell to the Turks, it had been reduced to a city-state.
That isn’t really accurate. The Roman Empire of the several centuries after the Arab conquests had its down period in the 800s, but came back strongly for several centuries from 900 through 1200 during which time they were the most powerful of all the states of Europe and Western Asia.
[deleted]
The Holy Roman Empire is as much “The Roman Empire” as the 1400s Byzantine Empire was. So depending on where you choose to draw your historical boundaries, The Roman Empire might still be with us today. Hitler was very explicitly trying to restore the empire that Napoleon had crushed. He obviously failed to achieve that, but very shortly after his failed attempt Europe was united under a single governing entity with Germany arguably having the strongest influence over it.
What a coincidence, I’ve just been watching videos about the late Roman Empire. If you’re interested I highly recommend the channel “Thersites the Historian” because he goes through many periods and individual reigns in great detail.
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UClHybiqQOzR8kUpg5BbnjdQ
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UClHybiqQOzR8kUpg5BbnjdQ
If you like history, like podcasts, and are interested in Byzantium, you will love Robin Pierson's “The History of Byzantium” podcast.
https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/about/
https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/about/
The fall of Rome podcast is also very good. It covers approx. 300-600 AD. https://wondery.com/shows/the-fall-of-rome-podcast/
Tides of History, also by Patrick Wyman, is also fantastic. Among many other topics, it covers the fall of the Byzantine Empire and rise of the Ottoman Empire.
I'd like to recommend another podcast on the subject, 12 Byzantine Rulers by Lars Brownworth: https://12byzantinerulers.com/
It's a short one, 17 episodes of about 20 minutes each. But these episodes are information-dense and have surprising depth. Also, this was one of the first podcasts ever published, starting in 2005.
It's a short one, 17 episodes of about 20 minutes each. But these episodes are information-dense and have surprising depth. Also, this was one of the first podcasts ever published, starting in 2005.
The book itself seems to have middling reviews in Amazon, the top most review goes like this:
"The author who, on the first page of the first chapter of this book, identifies the Book of Malachi, the last book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) as the final book of the New Testament hardly inspires confidence in the reader. This glaring error and a perusal of his sources, all essentially in English, induced me to return the book."
"The author who, on the first page of the first chapter of this book, identifies the Book of Malachi, the last book of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) as the final book of the New Testament hardly inspires confidence in the reader. This glaring error and a perusal of his sources, all essentially in English, induced me to return the book."
If, like me, your knowledge of Constantinople is limited to the They Might Be Giants song, an excellent light-ish read (as much as 100s of years of Byzantine, as in the ridiculously complex, history can be) is Ghost Empire by Richard Fidler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Empire_(book)
The History of Byzantium podcast is both accessible and well done- https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/
So... many... assassinations
Highly recommended.
For the evolution of the Byzantian side look towards the history of the Venetians, and their subsequent evolutions. For example, this adds new colour to the East India Companies perception in history.
This sounds fascinating. I almost want to get it just so I can learn what is meant by “The cursus publicus was hailed for its efficiency, at least until Justinian got his hands on it. “
A modern analog would be the USPS historically and what it's turned into under recent administrations, especially accelerated under DeJoy's administration.
Imagine an analogous overlay much like you provided but continuous for such historical texts. That would be something. Like a Google translate from historical or cultural texts to your own contemporary culture, or a battery of footnotes.
On a tangent. The latest version of Candide on Gutenberg has such footnotes spread throughout to explain some obscure mentions in the text. An absolute recommender.
On a tangent. The latest version of Candide on Gutenberg has such footnotes spread throughout to explain some obscure mentions in the text. An absolute recommender.
A battery of footnotes, commentary, and other marginalia is the norm for historical texts. The commentary is frequently more significant than the primary work.
This is fascinating.
“The cursus publicus (Latin: "the public way"; Ancient Greek: δημόσιος δρόμος, dēmósios drómos) was the state mandated and supervised courier and transportation service of the Roman Empire, later inherited by the Eastern Roman Empire. It was a system based on obligations placed on private persons by the Roman State”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_publicus
“The cursus publicus (Latin: "the public way"; Ancient Greek: δημόσιος δρόμος, dēmósios drómos) was the state mandated and supervised courier and transportation service of the Roman Empire, later inherited by the Eastern Roman Empire. It was a system based on obligations placed on private persons by the Roman State”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_publicus
> cursus publicus
Didn't the Byzantians speak Greek (rather than Latin)?
Didn't the Byzantians speak Greek (rather than Latin)?
If the illustration should show Constantinople in the period the book deals with, it is off by many centuries. Windmills were a development of the 12th century. It is like placing a knight on a motorbike instead of a horse.
> It is like placing a knight on a motorbike instead of a horse.
I just wondered if in a thousand years the lines of the different eras will become irrelevant enough that this could be a representation of the olden times. There would be plenty of photographic evidence proving that people on motorbikes never wore knight's armor, but it's possible that detail isn't important in that context.
I just wondered if in a thousand years the lines of the different eras will become irrelevant enough that this could be a representation of the olden times. There would be plenty of photographic evidence proving that people on motorbikes never wore knight's armor, but it's possible that detail isn't important in that context.
> I just wondered if in a thousand years the lines of the different eras will become irrelevant enough that this could be a representation of the olden times.
Obligatory XKCD:
https://xkcd.com/771/
Obligatory XKCD:
https://xkcd.com/771/
> There would be plenty of photographic evidence proving that people on motorbikes never wore knight's armor
Really? -- See: https://data8.lustich.de/bilder/l/14804-ritter-auf-motorrad....
Really? -- See: https://data8.lustich.de/bilder/l/14804-ritter-auf-motorrad....
[deleted]
But as the Empire fell, a large set of manuscripts were brought by the great Plethon to Cosimo d’Medici. Marsilio Ficino’s translation of Greek classics into Latin—like the complete works of Plato and the Hermetica—helped kindle the European Renaissance as we know it.