Was Basil II of Byzantium Evil?

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 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. 

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Originally posted by Constantine XI  Bulgaria was a new nation..