Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Topic: Was Basil II of Byzantium Evil? Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 07:57 |
Originally posted by rider
I believe that history and the modern world (at least the most of it) sides with Byzantium in this because it was the civilization. For most, Bulgaria was nothing but ruthless savage barbars. And mostly, 'crimes of war' are allowed against barbars.
|
I hope you are not serious.
|
.
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 08:36 |
Originally posted by Anton
Originally posted by rider
I believe that history and the modern world (at least the most of it) sides with Byzantium in this because it was the civilization. For most, Bulgaria was nothing but ruthless savage barbars. And mostly, 'crimes of war' are allowed against barbars.
|
I hope you are not serious. |
What, you disagree? I am fairly confident many people, easily can be said most of the people, see it as I have said. I didn't say I see it so... but many people do. There was no serious civilization or culture in the West then... the two major powers were the Arabs and Byzantium. For the western people, Byzantium will always be closer than the Arabs. One could obviously argue and add China, Maya and whatever other places into the discussion but... the medium person will reason as I have written here, most probably.
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 08:44 |
I thought we were taking about Basil? After his reign things went downhill and Byzantium became sidelined from the emergence of Western Europe. The place could have been saved but no Western power would support them for they wasted all their opportunities.
|
elenos
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 09:10 |
Originally posted by elenos
I thought we were taking about Basil? After his reign things went downhill and Byzantium became sidelined from the emergence of Western Europe. The place could have been saved but no Western power would support them for they wasted all their opportunities.
|
What I have noticed is that, every good topic that has a good discussion, is offtopic.
|
|
elenos
Chieftain
Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
|
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 09:43 |
I didn't say off topic. It is good to get away from all that stuff about the naming of streets. What I meant is to put the achievements of Basil alongside what else happened to Byzantium doesn't hold up somehow.
|
elenos
|
|
Krum
Baron
Joined: 25-Oct-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 412
|
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 10:55 |
Originally posted by Anton
Originally posted by rider
I believe that history and the modern world (at least the most of it) sides with Byzantium in this because it was the civilization. For most, Bulgaria was nothing but ruthless savage barbars. And mostly, 'crimes of war' are allowed against barbars. |
I hope you are not serious. |
I also hope that you are not serious.Bulgarians were not that barbaric.In fact bulgarians were probably more civilized than most of europeans.
|
It is only the dead who have seen the end of war.
Plato
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 11:17 |
Originally posted by Krum
I also hope that you are not serious.Bulgarians were not that barbaric.In fact bulgarians were probably more civilized than most of europeans. |
How do you know? In those times it was difficult for civilized europeans to survive .
|
.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 11:48 |
I think that what rider means is that most modern day historians will
look back on Byzantium as the more urban and settled civilisation.
Byzantium had the longer tradition of literary brilliance, was the
centre of Orthodoxy and was the repository of so much of the classical
knowledge which was lost in the West.
Plus, the winners write history. The Byzantine Empire won the war and
destroyed the First Bulgarian Empire. For this reason as well,
historians may look favourably on Byzantium.
Edit: thanks for the correction, Anton, it was the First Bulgarian Empire.
Edited by Constantine XI - 10-Jul-2007 at 12:25
|
|
akritas
Chieftain
Hegemom
Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
|
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 11:55 |
Originally posted by Anton
Originally posted by akritas
So why the Roman-slayer must focus to the Greeks ? |
Why not? I know a Greek guy who translated "Romans" as "Greeks" in the Skanderbeg's seal |
ΡΩΜΑΙΟΙ (Rum) is the word in the Scancdeberg shield and not Roman !!!!
Is tottaly diffrent the latin derivation fron the Greek one. Dont confused these terms how many times must I told you!!!
Is like to say you that are not Hellenas but Greek
|
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 12:10 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
The Byzantine Empire won the war and destroyed the Second Bulgarian Empire. |
First Bulgarian empire
|
.
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 12:14 |
Originally posted by akritas
ΡΩΜΑΙΟΙ (Rum) is the word in the Scancdeberg shield and not Roman !!!!
Is tottaly diffrent the latin derivation fron the Greek one. Dont confused these terms how many times must I told you!!!
Is like to say you that are not Hellenas but Greek |
Romaioiktonos was the name Kaloyan chosed for himself.
|
.
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 13:14 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
I think that what rider means is that most modern day historians will
look back on Byzantium as the more urban and settled civilisation.
Byzantium had the longer tradition of literary brilliance, was the
centre of Orthodoxy and was the repository of so much of the classical
knowledge which was lost in the West.
Plus, the winners write history. The Byzantine Empire won the war and
destroyed the First Bulgarian Empire. For this reason as well,
historians may look favourably on Byzantium.
Edit: thanks for the correction, Anton, it was the First Bulgarian Empire.
|
Exactly. Thanks for clearing it up...
|
|
Neoptolemos
Colonel
Joined: 02-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 659
|
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 15:13 |
Originally posted by rider
I am serious. I am not a linguist but the Latin script is much more beautiful. I suppose that if we transliterate it with the Latin script we also pronounce it like it was a Latin name? |
I thought you might be joking because you had many ... ... in your post and also made it look like a fact that Greeks dropped "B". Re beautiful: well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but keep in mind that more than half of letters (capitall letters) in the Latin and Greek script are identical; some of them correspond to a different sound though. Depending on the script you use, you are bound to pronounce names differently.
|
|
|
ChickenShoes
Pretorian
Joined: 08-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 152
|
Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 21:24 |
Originally posted by Genghis
I don't think that's evil given the standards of the time, and one of my Greek friends who is the proudest Greek on Earth told me that at least from other Greek people he's met, Basil is admired in Greece for bringing Byzantium to its greatest extent since the fall of the Near East to the Arabs.
What do you all think? |
Maybe not evil, everything at that time was evil in my opinion...such wanton brutality. But youur friend seems like a nationalist and proud that an emperor of the past forged such a great empire. However, creating a huge and grand empire does not give you mandate to maim and kill without regard to anyone.
|
It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail
|
|
Kubrat
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2004
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 339
|
Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 02:07 |
Originally posted by rider
Originally posted by Constantine XI
I think that what rider means is that most modern day historians will
look back on Byzantium as the more urban and settled civilisation.
Byzantium had the longer tradition of literary brilliance, was the
centre of Orthodoxy and was the repository of so much of the classical
knowledge which was lost in the West.
Plus, the winners write history. The Byzantine Empire won the war and
destroyed the First Bulgarian Empire. For this reason as well,
historians may look favourably on Byzantium.
Edit: thanks for the correction, Anton, it was the First Bulgarian Empire.
|
Exactly. Thanks for clearing it up...
|
Still, if history (if we look back and say that this crime, or that
crime was alright) allows crimes against people, then perhaps we as a
society should reexamine our morals.
I do see your point, though, and I do understand that in the
development in human civilization, sometimes one people is more valued
than another, but in this case, I think a lot of people simply don't
know that much about Bulgaria. For example, though the first
University was in the Byzantine Empire, the second and third
universities (all three were built in the 10th century, I think) were
built in Bulgaria.
Of course, they were probably built because of Byzantine influence, to
elevate Bulgarian culture to a degree equal to that of Byzantine
culture. But this in itself tells you that Bulgarians weren't
barbarians at that point in time. Besides, Bulgaria (Danubian) had
existed as a nation with defined borders for more than three centuries
at that point. Nations that are settled like that are usually hardly
barbaric.
Edited by Kubrat - 12-Jul-2007 at 02:08
|
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 03:02 |
Kubrat, that might tell me that, but who will tell the billion other people who think that Byzantium was the civilization and had to do anything in order to defend itself?
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 04:28 |
Originally posted by Kubrat
Originally posted by rider
Originally posted by Constantine XI
I think that what rider means is that most modern day historians will
look back on Byzantium as the more urban and settled civilisation.
Byzantium had the longer tradition of literary brilliance, was the
centre of Orthodoxy and was the repository of so much of the classical
knowledge which was lost in the West.
Plus, the winners write history. The Byzantine Empire won the war and
destroyed the First Bulgarian Empire. For this reason as well,
historians may look favourably on Byzantium.
Edit: thanks for the correction, Anton, it was the First Bulgarian Empire.
|
Exactly. Thanks for clearing it up...
|
Still, if history (if we look back and say that this crime, or that
crime was alright) allows crimes against people, then perhaps we as a
society should reexamine our morals.
I do see your point, though, and I do understand that in the
development in human civilization, sometimes one people is more valued
than another, but in this case, I think a lot of people simply don't
know that much about Bulgaria. For example, though the first
University was in the Byzantine Empire, the second and third
universities (all three were built in the 10th century, I think) were
built in Bulgaria.
Of course, they were probably built because of Byzantine influence, to
elevate Bulgarian culture to a degree equal to that of Byzantine
culture. But this in itself tells you that Bulgarians weren't
barbarians at that point in time. Besides, Bulgaria (Danubian) had
existed as a nation with defined borders for more than three centuries
at that point. Nations that are settled like that are usually hardly
barbaric.
|
I think that what you have said is quite true. Most people do not know
much about Bulgaria. Infact, most people do not know much about
Byzantium either, but they usually know a little more about Byzantium
than the First Bulgarian Empire.
People also probably look at Bulgaria and judge it by how they see it
in modern times. Even though Bulgaria was at times a major east
European power, today it is one of a number of Balkan nations which is
considered underdeveloped and still emerging from a history of Ottoman
and Soviet domination.
Bulgaria was largely cut off from Western Europe, perhaps with the
exception of a few exchanges between the Tsar and the Pope. When
Liutprand of Cremona visited Constantinople, he criticised the
Bulgarians for the style with which they wore their hair and did call
it a "barbarian style". Bulgaria did not fit into the Hellenic category
of Byzantium, nor did it fit into the customs and history of Catholic
Europe. At times the "Christianess" of the Bulgarians was questionable
to Western eyes, because of the tendency of the Bulgarian aristocracy
to love old paganism. Bulgaria was a new nation and only very recently
Christian.
So for these sorts of reasons also i think historians tend to see Byzantium as more closely related.
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 07:40 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
At times the "Christianess" of the Bulgarians was questionable to Western eyes, because of the tendency of the Bulgarian aristocracy to love old paganism. Bulgaria was a new nation and only very recently Christian.
|
This paganism was in fact Bogomilism and other dualistic herecies which many people considered (and still consider) to be more close to initial Christianity. These herecies are still alive and are still disliked by official Orthodox and Catolic churches.
Bulgaria was largely cut off from Western Europe, perhaps with the exception of a few exchanges between the Tsar and the Pope.
|
That's a huuuuuge underestimation. First and Second Bulgarian Empires were in constant contacts with Rome, Frank Empire, Hungary and other European states; there was extensive trade (and alliences and wars too) between Dobrujan despotate and Venecia and Genoese; Bogomils and Cathars contacted for centuries (you probably know that Cathars were frequently called Bulgars in Western Europe), there was a Catholic Church in Bulgaria all the time; etc. etc.
|
.
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 08:00 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Bulgaria was a new nation..
|
I bet you will have difficulties in finding "a nation" in multiethnical mulicultural Byzantine Empire.
Originally posted by Constantine XI
...and only very recently Christian.
|
This is also questionable. Sources suggests that many Bulgars were Christians since Vitalian time. According to archeological data churches were constantly built in Bulgarian territory since Constantine the Great time and it was not stoped during 681-865 when Bulgaria as it is supposed by most historians was pagan.
|
.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 10:34 |
Originally posted by Anton
That's a huuuuuge underestimation. First and Second Bulgarian Empires
were in constant contacts with Rome, Frank Empire, Hungary and other
European states; there was extensive trade (and alliences and wars
too) between Dobrujan despotate and Venecia and Genoese; Bogomils and
Cathars contacted for centuries (you probably know that Cathars were
frequently called Bulgars in Western Europe), there was a Catholic
Church in Bulgaria all the time; etc. etc. |
But Bulgaria was never a big player in Western politics, trade or
religion. Their ability to actually exert influence on the West was
pretty limited, more limited than the Byzantine Empire. As a result,
Bulgaria was still a far away and obscure kingdom from the point of
view of many of the Catholic powers compared to a place like Britain,
Italy, Spain or Germany.
Originally posted by Anton
This is also questionable. Sources suggests that many Bulgars were
Christians since Vitalian time. According to archeological data
churches were constantly built in Bulgarian territory since Constantine
the Great time and it was not stoped during 681-865 when Bulgaria as it
is supposed by most historians was pagan. |
Wasn't there a Tsar who still quite late into the First Bulgarian
Empire had to come back out of retirement in his monastary to punish
the Bulgarian nobles who had reverted from Christianity back to
paganism? Christianity had certainly existed in Bulgarian lands from
Roman times, but it was not until much later that the Bulgarian
monarchy and nobles could be considered Christian rather than pagan.
|
|