Discovering Byzantium

It is fortunate that in my case, the blank expressions from my friends came not only from mention of the Byzantine Empire, but also the Crusades, the Peloponessian War, the Reformation, etc.

 I need smarter friends...

 Try almost every point in history ever for me, I swear some people believe the world started in the year of their birth

I discovered Byzantium because I am from Istanbul.

I wrote this in another thread, 'why don't Greeks like Byzantium', but it fits better here:

'I think the problem arises from the fact that there used to be two cultural areas in Europe, Latin and Greek (Byzantine). But the Greek cultural sphere was destroyed by the Muslims and the Latins. Later, when Latins industrialised, they pushed the Turks out of Greek culture sphere. But the Greek culture couldn't recover. It used to be an equal of Muslims or Latins. Western Europeans (i.e. Latins) also created a myth, in their height of power and arrogance, called the 'Western Civilisation' into which they incorporated the ancient Greeks but conveniently excluded the height of Greek achievement, the Byzantine Empire. When the Greeks were freed from the Turkish yoke (by the Westerners), they bought into this story. Which is not surprising, since the West got so strong, everyone wants a piece of it, even the Turks and Iranians as we see.'

and

'Turks have invaded most of the Greek cultural sphere, which consisted of the Byzantine Empire and the lands with Orthodox religion. In this sphere, everyone looked at Greeks as the source of civilisation and considered them the main power. And the Greeks themselves had no doubt whatsoever that they were different than (and superior to), the 'West' (Latins) or to Islam.

But Latins and Muslims destroyed that state of affairs for ever. And when the Turks were forced out of (half of) that area, it left a cultural vacuum, which was not filled by a revival of Byzantine power and Greek culture, but by small states dominated by Western culture.

Today we cannot speak of a Greek culture sphere or Greek leadership in Europe, there is only the 'European' sphere, post-Christian Latin, i.e. Western. That's why I say that it was destroyed. Today, all states in Europe consider themselves to be a part of this with the exception of Russia and its satellites, but even they are not Greek anymore, they are more like a separate post-communist sphere now. Russia tried to fill the gap left by Byzantium for a while, and resisted the West, but the communist rule transformed their role and culture to a great extent. Communism itself is nothing but a Western counter-culture.'

on Greek independence

'... remember that 'nationalism' itself is a Western idea, which shows the Western domination of the Greek cultural life. As Western ideals started to spread around the Greeks, there were two factions, one asking for cooperation with the Turks against the West and re-institution of the Byzantine Empire by culturally taking over the Ottoman Empire from inside. It makes some sense when one considers that Greeks were richest group in the Empire because they dominated the sea trade. In the 18th century, Phanariots and Greeks merchants were Hellenising Romanians and others, bringing about the hope of a Byzantine cultural revival. Today it seems strange for us that the Greek rebellion in 1820 also took place in Istanbul, but it signifies this usually ignored trend. 

But there was another group, which was western influenced and had asked for a independent Greek nation state. The second movement became dominant, and Greeks abandoned the dreams of a Byzantine revival in return for a ethnic Greek nation state.'

 Its a curious point you made Ikki about the Byzantine empire being "tired" and that they "fight without energy" I can see what you mean, but I think a better way of saying that would be to say that the empire as a power was greatly reduced from the old days. Also that the empire was over-reaching itself.

 For example around 15,000 men where sent to conquer the Vandal kingdom in North Africa and most of these men were mercenaries, years later Narses arrived in Italy with a force of 30,000 which was considered huge certainly by the standards of Justinian.

 The old armies of the Roman empire were often much larger and would be adequate to pursue a policy of reconquest, Justinians army was at one point as low as around 150,000-175,000 (I can never remember the exact number but I know it was around what ive said) even though it had been much much larger earlier in his reign.

 Considering the vast commitments the empire had, the fragile peace with the barbarians across the Danube only maintained by bribes, the somewhat less than "eternal peace" with Persia and then the conquest and consolidating of the newly conquered territories will have brought the army to breaking point. Made many times worse by the plague which ravaged it and severely weakened the empire in terms of man-power., there was also desertions among the ranks of mercenaries and constant drain on gold and men as resistance especially in Italy ballooned. To an extent making Italy barely worth the conquest such was the devastation.

 I suppose then it is correct to say the empire was exhausted and sapped of energy, which made the collapse of the newly conquered territories in Spain, Italy and North Africa a distinct probability also making it harder for the empire to meet its commitments elsewhere.

I looked through my schools' entire catalog and of course there weren't any byzantine courses.  I had to settle for a world civilization class that devotes a chapter to byzantium.  I'm definitely transferring, by the way where do you go to school? 

I hear you. I remember once I was talking about some history subjects with some friends and one of them said "Who cares? It's just history. It's passed and it doesn't matter anymore."

I don't know who I feel worse for; the person who says that or the person who hears it.