The Byzantine empire is as we all know nowhere near as well known as the Roman empire of Augustus and known even less in its own right and not simply the surviving half of the old Roman empire.

 With so little information about the empire in common circulation and so few avergae everyday people having the scantest of knowledge about it, the only real way to find out about it is to study Roman history and simply come across it when the story begins with Constantine.

 So I was wondering, when did you first become interested in Byzantium? How did you discover it? and what kept you coming back for more? also anybody who is not interested in Byzantium id be interesting in hearing why.

 For me, I discovered Byzantium by playing computer games, Medieval total war as players of the game will know includes the Byzantine empire as one of the playable factions. This was about 18 months ago I had never heard of Byzantium, my knowledge of Roman history although growing was still in its infancy. I had heard of a city called Constantinople, I had no idea of its location, its history, if it still existed etc. Just a word id picked up from somewhere. I became interested in this particular empire, because in the game in which the empire was present a very vivid picture was painted for me.

 What I saw here was an empire struggling to survive, on the verge of annihilation seemingly all the time, with a proud and long history, an empire that was a champion of learning and the arts when much of europe was more interested in pointless and bloody wars from which there was seldom a winner. An empire that didnt deserve its troubles.

 With characters that appeared invented, Justinian, Heraclius, Basil II, the Comnemi and the last Constantine, it read more like a fantastic fiction and not like it had happened. Justinian a man who first grabbed my attention and its thanks to him that I kept that interest in Byzantium. So many ups and downs, heroes and and tyrants, from the beginning to the devastatingly tragic end. Its a story that couldnt of been better written.

 Having been introduced to this empire in this most unexpected of places, I searched around the internet and found countless sites with endless info on Rome but so few on Byzantium, at this point I was totally unaware of Byzantiums reputation and the damage caused to it by Gibbon and the like. I then searched local book shops and found the same problem, stacks and stacks of books on Rome hundreds of books, but only 1 shelf for Byzantium a dozen different books at most. My interest waned at this lack of info.

 However the internet in the shape of Wikipedia rekindled my interest and after a renewed search, I found the absolute gem that is John Julius Norwichs trilogy on Byzantium which capitivated me from the moment I turned the first page. I also bought (although now regrettably) Gibbons Decline and fall, and also the very good Oxford history of Byzantium.

 After a year of learning from books and the internet what I can about this largely ignored or forgotten empire, my knowledge is growing but is still tiny, and there is a long long way to go before I can even consider myself anything resembling knowledgable on Byzantium. However this civilisation has interested me infinitly more than Rome ever could and so I continue to learn with a permanent vigour and determination to not only become as knowledgable as possible on it but to promote it and attempt in some way to bring it up to the level Rome has achieved, but in its own right and its own merits.

My interest in Byzantium goes back to my junior and senior years of high school.  I was already quite interested in Roman history and was in the process of reading everything I could on the Empire.  Eventually I picked up a condensed version of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.  Despite his blatantly negative view of Byzantium, this was my first glimpse of it and my curiosity set in.  Like you, Heraclius, I bought Norwich's book (the concise version of the trilogy) and was instantly hooked .  I think what initially attracted me to Byzantine history was the combination of Christianity and the Roman imperial tradition in its civilization.

It is interesting that you mention video games as encouragement to study history.  It was similar with me too; first a World History course I took my sophomore year of high school and second playing Age of Empires II got me really interested in History.

Over the years I have tried to familiarize myself with all the scholarly books and articles on Byzantium, as well as the primary sources.  Continuing with my Latin and learning Greek in college were also a result of my interest in the Empire.  After reading certain authors and studying everything that I could find that they wrote, my interests within the field narrowed to the Late period (1204-1461 roughly), with a focus on the army and the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Finally, here I am studying Byzantium in graduate school!

Naturally I studied many things about the Byzantine Empire in school. But I became really enquirer after I read a novel, Johannes Angelos by Mika Waltari. From that time I have bought many books about it. (by Ostrogorsky, Moravcsik, Brehier, Obolensky, Meyendorff, Runciman etc.)

What Meyendorff book have you read?  I have his Byzantine Theology book, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, and a book he co-authored with Aristeides Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium (about the Filioque controversy).

2. The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church 1071-1453 co-authored with Aristeides Papadakis.

There is a series of books named Varia Byzantina recently published in Hungary. I usually buy them. The latest was The Day-To-Day Life of the Desert Fathers: In Fourth-Century Egypt by Lucien Regnault 

 I'm most interested in the reigns of Justinian the great, Heraclius, Basil II and the Comnemi, so i dont have one period im focused on entirely, its much more stretched out.

 I dont have much interest in the Iconoclasts and post 1261, Justinian is the Emperor i'm most fond of  (despite my username) even though he sometime's comes across as though he doesnt deserve it.

 Yeah the word "Byzantium" has a curious ring to it, similar to Xanadu for me, feels distant and surrounded by magic somehow.

 Books can only take me so far though, I intend to visit Turkey in the near future and see things for myself, when I went to Rome a year ago everything made more sense and I got a feel for the city and the empire it once controlled.

 I need to see *Constantinople* for myself, much of whats left though seems to be in almost total ruin, with the major exceptions of interest of Hagia Sophia and the still standing city walls. The Hippodrome is practically gone, the palaces have little traces, the columns are largely destroyed or ruined, and much else has barely survived.

 Hopefully ill of visited Istanbul within the next year, but its going to have to blow me away to beat Rome, with so little left its going to be hard.

 It does seem Greeks generally are more interested in the time when it was the Greek city states fighting the Persians etc. The only time Greeks seem particularly interested in Byzantium is its fall, when an argument inevitably breaks out between greeks and turks.

 Its strange an Englishman, an Australian, a Filipino (sp?) an American and an Hungarian all replied to this thread as either passive fans of Byzantium or major students of it yet not one Greek. Infact apply that to almost all Byzantine related threads on this forum  very odd.

I actually mistyped something in my previous post.  This is the book that I meant (I have the paperback edtition with the green cover).  Crisis in Byzantium is by Papadakis, but there is no co-author.

Greetings

Constantine you can't imagine how negative is the opinion that most of the greeks have about Byzantium. First in school we learn almost nothing about it. We learn that it was a theocratical state with almost no interest in any part of life there, hehe when i finish school i believed that Byzantines was just religius fanatics and nothing else.

 Constantine i read your post for a long time and the first time i belived that you was a professor in Byzantine studies.

 All the intellactual people here in greece are Gibbon funs.

Sorry for bad english .

 Some people like Gibbon!  that pompous twit is a joke and I dont think he deserves one ounce of the credit he gets.

 The Greeks should be proud of Byzantium and knowledgable about it, Byzantium is one of Greeces greatest triumphs and enduring legacies.

 Im stunned, rejected by the world for the last few hundred years and now rejected by its own people  is there some kind of conspiracy to down Byzantium or something?

 It seems to me the only interest Greece has in Byzantium is as a focal point to have a bash at the Turks, every single time WITHOUT fail on here that Byzantium is brought up and Greeks and Turks post on it there is an argument about which side is worse, which one killed more people yadda yadda yadda. Its sad Greeks have so little real interest in Byzantium.

Heraclius here in greece we favor our ascient history over anything (and that's our greatest fault). When in our schools we learn that the Byzantines destoyed the ascient culture and momuments. Do you know that in the newspapper with the most sales there was a comment says that the byzantines destroyed the ascient temples, burned ascient books (well even if the first books was created in byzantine times ) and throw heretics into fire?

 How can we be pride when we learn such thinks about that time?

 Take it upon yourself to learn other than what school teaches you, the Byzantines valued ancient Greek culture. Ignore idiots like Gibbon, read the work of people who know what the hell they are on about and arent biased. If nobody Greek studies Byzantium then the Greek perception will never change, its important that atleast some people know the true Byzantium.

 I mean the ancient Greeks were FAR from perfect, they spent much of their time fighting each other in pointless endless wars that showed no signs of ceasing. Im sick to death of Byzantium being ignored.

Well in my opinion if today's Greeks want to disown Byzantium then they are losing out. Hehe, no I am not a professor of Byzantine studies, though doing such units as Medieval Europe and The Crusades at university has allowed me to indulge my interest in the topic.

What I am wondering though is, apart from Byzantium's theological orientation and ultimate decline and death, why else would modern Greeks feel contempt for this fascinating civilization. How can they ignore the fact that it was the greatest bastion of Christendom in the Middle Ages, kept alive and advanced works of arts, learning and culture. That it provided a standard of living and education for many of its citizens considerably in excess of that which other nations of the period could. How can they ignore the heroic wars of self-defence, like those of Heraclius, Alexius I, the Nicene Emperors, Michael VIII, Andronicus III, Constantine XI etc etc etc.

The Empire certainly had its bad points, but how on earth can so many good points and achievements be overlooked?

Yeah, I have heard this as well.  In my hometown there is a big Greek festival on the grounds of the local Orthodox Church.  The church actually sponsors it.  Of course there is the Greek food / drink and the dancing.  In the room where they have Greek souvenirs, however, the ENTIRE display is almost exclusively ancient pagan Greek stuff!  There is maybe one table with a few Byzantine icons or crosses for looks...it is so annoying!  My favorite part of the festival, which they manage to have held onto, is the tour of the church.

Well, what about the humiliating manhandling that the ancient Greeks received from the Romans?  That is what I would say in answer to that guy's statement.

Well, yes the Romans received their culture from the Greeks.  Everyone knows that.  And yes the Greeks were semi-autonomous in the Republican period.  But one could also point out that the Ottomans gave the Greeks and Orthodox Christians a good deal of autonomy in the millets and through the Patriarch, at least in the beginning of the Turkokratia.  However, the pitiful remnants of the Hellenistic kingdom (in a political and military sense) were hammered into submission by the Romans.  But I think you understand what my original point was!

Spartakus:

"Another thing is i am not intrigued by an empire whose life was characterized by a religion."

Well then you miss a very big part of history.

Bloody me...

Well I also think that acient byzantine history is not part of greek history.

It is like USA and Britain

The first use English take good things from England but they are americans it is the same in byzantia they respect greece philosops and achievements but it is an empire with different doctrine.

Well as a Bulgar I have to say that four years in school we are learning for Byzantia but with  a some kind of little propaganda well I can separate the thruth.May be you know that about 800 we were neighbours with this great empire 

Oh, but Byzantine History is part of greek history just as British history is part of american history.

All the important figures in the begining of the colonization were english, the pilgrims were english, they are important. English was still language of Usa. There are more but

Most Byzantine people were greek people. So it is the history of Greek people.  I do not know what side you get that from. Explain a little more then.

We cant be sure about that. The Balkan population of Byzanthine Empire was consisted of Greeks, Slavs, Thracians, Bulgarians, and even minor Turkic population (Oguz, Pechenek Turks). Altough the Greek population was always the majority around the coasts of Aegean, inner Anatolian lands of Byzanthine Empire was an ethnic mixture of its natives.

Armenians were the majority of the population in lots of Anatolian cities from Sivas to Kastamonu. The rest, were Greek speaking Rumois, their ethnic origins arent clear, definately descendents of ancient Anatolians. There were also some Turkic population settled in Eastern and Central anatolia, coming long before the Seljuks, such as Kipchak, Guz, Velentur Bulgars etc.

But no doubt that they are the inheritors of Byzanthine civilization and descendents of the empire.

Very nice topic!

I discovered the Byzantine Empire in my scooling years, tried to learn more about it but later, with my growing antipathy for the christian church and legacy and my growing admiration for the ancient Greek world, I kind of abandoned it.

I only started coming back to Byzantium in my late 20s (I am in my early 30s right now) and it is an evergrowing interest eversince.

I find certain aspects of Byzantium rather uncomforting or downright repulsive (the absolute rule, the extreme cruelty as illustrated through the gloriously rich torturing customs and ethics, the all-powerfull theocracy and others) but all in all I find it fascinating and historically very, very interesting.

The Empire itself, a Greekified Roman Multiethnic State, with Theocratic buildup, is perhaps the most interesting, diverse, stunningly vibrant and everchanging example of a state the world has ever produced.  Also, Byzantium is a real treasure for fans of military history too.

Basically my views are in alignment with those of Phallanx, and thanks to him for introducing Plethon who is a most interesting character in that he managed to synthesise so much of what was best in Byzantium with Classical Hellenic creativity.

I have repeated this in half a dozen posts before, but for the benefit of those here will repeat it once more. The Byzantine Empire was an entity distinguished by its political ideology (A new type of Roman Imperium) as well as its theological leanings (a Christian Orthodox state). Nationalism and ethnicity were far less evident and relevent concepts in the medieval period compared to modern times, though I freely admit that the largest cultural influence on this nation was a Hellenic one. As I have mentioned ethnicity in the medieval period was so different compared to modern times that it is often a little inappropriate to apply it to medieval peoples. But the Byzantine nation was a religiously and politically defined entity which was usually multi-ethnic but which had Greeks as the largest single bloc.

I think the analogy between Britain and the USA is not quite right, Byzantium was a continuation of Greek culture and political entity which rightfully deserves to be considered a major part of Hellnic history.

The Romans began conquering the lands in the East following the conclusion of the Second Punic War, using the ineffectual help Phillip V of Macedon gave to the Carthaginians as a pretext. From that time in the 2nd century BC right through to Trajan the continued pushing East. The lands they conquered were, for the most part, already immersed in a Hellenic culture. Linguistically Greek was the most common international language spoken in the East Roman lands. The Romans set up government structures, wrote laws, established some settlements for retired army veterans and of course established military bases and in each of these cases Latin was the language by which the people functioned. However, the populations in such regions would much more commonly speak Greek, the Latin being an artificial introduction which the local populations did not fully absorb. As the gravity of power shifted away from Italy, the Roman Empire was split between a Latin dominant West and Greek dominant East. The East Roman Empire now had its capital in Byzantium - a Greek city. Now drawing on the local populations for their administrators, soldiers and elites, the hierarchy was increasingly speaking Greek instead of Latin. When Heraclius completed his reign in 640 the Empire had lost all of the Middle East except Anatolia, was about to lose North Africa and Egypt, and was largely confined to Greek dominant areas of Italy and the Balkans. The Empire had been largely reduced to areas where the dominant language was Greek, and so increasingly for sheer practicality Latin was simply discarded.

The dominance of the Orthodox faith was part of the fact that Christianity had always distinguished the Byzantines from other nations, including Christian ones. As Byzantine religion developed it attained a mystical, eastern dimension which distanced it from many other churches. It was also an instrucment of state control, the Emperors pushing for the supremacy of the see of Constantinople as a measure of their theocratic superiority in this religious age. Anyone who did not conform to Orthodoxy was mercilessly persecuted as enemies of both the church and the state. This was a continuation of the practice of Caesaro-Papism which began under Constantine I.

The right of the Emperor to rule was tied in with the Orthodox religious doctrine which all subjects adhered to. Ever since Augustus there had always been an Emperor, alternative forms of government being unthinkable. The Emperor was ordained by God as His special representative in the world, autocratic Emperorship being a theocraticaly sanctioned form of government which was therefore ordained by God to rule the Empire. Just as Heaven had one all powerful ruler so did Earth and this was embodied in the person of the Emperor. While revolts against an individual would occur (if you succeeded then obviously you had the blessing of God, otherwise you would clearly have always been doomed to failure), the actual practice of an autocratic Emperor was always considered the only proper form of government structure in keeping with historical tradition and theological speculation.

Hope this helps.

It's great - you write in a plain un feathered style that is very good to read. Much better than many of those that get payed to do it

next question-  This divine right (so to speak) of an emperor to rule - At what time did it become so ingrained in their social structure- around the same time it was developing in the west or before , What I'm tring to say Was this ideal copyed to the west - it is a principle many of the eropean monarchies used even to the point of including it in titles.

I would say in the the 4th century AD.  As you might know, even in pagan times there was an official state religion in the Roman Empire, at the head of which was the emperor, as pontifex maximus (chief priest).  Subsequently a cult of the emperor grew where citizens and the imperial family would honor the emperor religiously as supreme ruler and then have his memory deified after his death.  However, Augustus and subsequent emperors tried to promote at least an outside appearance of a republican government, with provincial representatives and the Senate still in place (although power was largely concentrated into his hands and he had the final say).

By the time of the accession of Diocletian in 285 AD, however, there was a visible shift in the principate to one of autocracy.  Rome was no longer the stationary capital of the empire; under Diocletian, the imperial administration moved around when he traveled, often further east.  Since he spent much of his time on campaign in the east, and left the Western part of the tetrarchy to his junior Augustus,  certain trappings of Oriental autocracy were adopted from neighboring influences - the Sassanians, the Armenians, and the Arabs.  All power was concentrated into the hands of the emperor and a few officials; the emperor was revered as a god in court ceremony.  Constantine picked up much of this as Diocletian's successor, and it was given a more Christian flavor.  This is the basis for the Byzantine autocratic government that would remain in place for the next millennium. 

Thanks about the comments on style. While I can write in a feathered style (and sometimes will when I know it will get me marks) I consider doing that to be a bit pompous and self indulgent. Much better to communicate the message as effectively as possible to the reader.

As to the question of divine right I am glad you brought up this topic as it is one I have given some thought to. I see Byzantium as being a political and culural trend-setter for medieval Europe in many ways. The association of the Roman Emperor goes right back to the inception of the Empire, with Augustus making himself the son of a God by having his predecessor Caesar deified. In so doing this the Romans went even further than the Byzantines by making rulers and dynasties divine. However, this was a move which appealed more to the cult of personality more strongly adhered to in the Eastern provinces. The East had always been infused with a mystical fascination of great rulers, with the West often looking at things in a more materialistic fashion.

The real change IMHO occured not under Constantine but under Diocletian. The 3rd century in Rome witnessed well over 25 Emperors, showing just how human such men were and how vulnerable. When Diocletian became Emperor I see a number of reforms occuring which greatly advanced the divine association of the Emperor. He moved the capital East to Nicomedia (Constantine made the move East permanent, to the small Greek port of Byzantium which he renamed Constantinople). Diocletian also introduced a great deal of court ceremony and protocol designed to make the Emperor all the more inaccessable and mysterious to put an end to the constant assassinations which the 3rd century saw. When Constantine came to the throne he continued the policies begun by Diocletian, but made the critical addition of making Christianity the state religion. Most historians agree he did this as a practical move to unify and strengthen his Empire, and indeed Constantine made sure that church structures buttressed the state wherever possible. East Roman government was stronger than the West, and able to keep vigorous control of much of the church hierarchy and manipulate it for political ends.

The West collapsed but the East remained intact. The East was ready to adapt to the idea of the Emperor being divinely ordained, major Eastern kingdoms had for thousands of years ruled under such a cult of royal personality (e.g. Egypt). By the time of Justinian we see a clear and consistant association of the Emperor with the ecclesiastic authorities and Imperial propaganda (e.g. Ravenna mosaics) are clearly portraying the Emperor in divine role. The West, lacking such a strong central government which could dominate the Church and lacking such a cult of personality, would wait centuries longer before a similar cult of divine ordainment took hold. Quite often in the West it was the Church rather than secular government which was responsible for consistent and progressive social organisation from the period 600-1000. This allowed the Papacy to push for a separation of church and state. Only later when a strong central government was established in the West do we see the first introductions of divine ordainment into that part of the world. The West was clearly adopting this fashion from Byzantium, one only need look at the Byzantine silks, the paintings of Ottonian Emperors, the adoption of Byzantine power symbols and court protocol to see that. Though we may see the beginnings of divine ordainment as early as Charlemagne, IMHO it was not until the Ottonian Emperors that the practice gained consistent staying power and would progress into the form Europe would know centuries down the track.

Believe it or not, there was still a senatorial body in Diocletian's time.  The senators were basically wealthy landowners who had these massive estates called latifundia.  These are pretty much the basis for the medieval manors, which were worked by peasants tied to the land.  In the late Roman and early Byzantine periods the senatorial landowners were an important element in the agrarian economy.  As far as an advisory or legislative body, that function was pushed into the background by the autocratic emperors.  The senate did last until possibly the Comnenian, and maybe even the early Palaeologan period, but did not serve much purpose except for its members to bear the flashy title of senator.

When Augustus took power he had to play a delicate tight-rope game with the Senate. He had the practical vestiges of power, but if he wanted to keep it he had to assume legitimacy or go the way of his predecessor Julius Caesar. Augustus cemented the role of the Emperor in Roman life and made a return to Rebublican rule an option which was no longer pursued.

As BE has pointed out the Senate lasted a long time. For the most part it was a rubber stamp instution which did the Emperor's bidding. Once Augustus and Tiberius had gone future Emperors found their position in Roman society so strong that they could mistreat the Senate and its members, Nero has such a bad historical record perhaps precisely because he strove so hard for the popularity of the commoners while showing outright contempt for the Senatorial class - the class which would provide the educated men who would later record his reign. So for most of Roman-Byzantine history the Senate was a prestigious body which was largely a rubber stamp or advisory body for the Emperor.

We should keep in mind that the Senate did come to serve practical purposes through Romano-Byzantine history. Constantine I, in keeping with turning the city of Byzantium into New Rome, had a Senate installed in Constantinople and this continued to exist until at least the 13th century. During periods of weakness, distress, when there was a weak autocrat or when the autocrat found it prudent to draw on the expertise of some of his most prominent citizens the Senate would play major roles in administration and government. After the death of Justinian (565) we see the Byzantines making extensive use of the Senate for administrative purposes up until the tyrant Phocas (602-10) repressed them tyranically. While Heraclius was fighting in the East he left the Patriarch Sergius and the Senator Bonus jointly incharge of the capital Constantinople during one of its most gruelling sieges. The Senate was also looked to as a body to provide Emperors when a proper line of succession was not apparent, therefore the autocrat would sometimes even be designated or proposed by the Senate. Examples include Emperor Anastasius I, Leontius, Anastasius II and others. Though this did not happen all that often.

As late as Alexius III (another of my pet hates) (1195-1203) we see the Emperor convening a council of important nobles, officials and the entire Senate to discuss solutions to the critical problem of an extortion attempt by the German Emperor Henry VI. As late as this we see the Senate as a body providing advice, being consulted and taking an active (though not dominant) part in the workings of government.

All up the Senate was not a dominating force in government, but it remained an important body whose scope of power and contribution to the workings of government varied over the course of history. Sometimes it was a rubber stamp for the Emperor, other times it was a powerful body to be reckoned with and served a major role in the business of state.

Did it contribute to greater longevity? I would say yes, having a body to represent the interests of the upper classes and to act in an advisory capacity did help. The members of a state always are more willing to accept authority when they are represented, even if only symbolically. The Senate was able to partially fill the gaps left in times of autocratic weakness, and the replacement of the Senate by a nepotist association of the Emperor's top nobles and family members in Byzantium coincided with the first moves in the West towards more representative government (eg Magna Carta and the English Parliament). It was this period which saw the increasing rise of the West and decline of Byzantium.

As BE says latifundia is the basis for the fuedal manor did Byzantine develope a fuedal system along the lines of medeival England or France ?

On another vain - You have established the existance and continued use of the senete id the continue to have Councils and other such officials (more along the lines of Augustus' Councils rather than the Republic Councils - those went by the wayside never to return) .

Did the lose of the senete to this "nepotist association" play a large part in the empires down fall and it have a name.

This being a sort of a good topic for a question.....

Who are considered the greatest enemy of the Byzantine empire - overall in those ages?

The Bulgarian kingdom perhaps --- afterall i do believe that they were the closest to Constantinople and other major Byz. cities

Originally posted by Thracian This being a sort of a good topic for a question..... Who are considered the greatest enemy of the Byzantine empire - overall in those ages? The Bulgarian kingdom perhaps --- afterall i do believe that they were the closest to Constantinople and other major Byz. cities

 Varies from period to period in Byzantine history, it was once the Persians, the Avars, the Arabs, the Bulgars, the Turks Seljuk and then Ottoman and the Crusaders. Sometimes working together like the Avars and Persians did to besiege Constantinople in 626.

 The most persistant and dangerous enemy proved to be the Turks who slowly ate up the Byzantine empire, until the empires fragmentation after 1204 when the empire was to weak to hold the Turks back, the Turks didnt conquer the empire there and then probably because of problems elsewhere and civil wars, but obviously recovered and destroyed the empire in 1453 mopping up Mistra and Trebizond soon afterwards.

 The Bulgars were a persistant thorn in Byzantiums side but since they were liquidated by Basil II Bulgarokonos in the 11th century they cant really be considered Byzantiums greatest enemy. Besides the empire was almost always more concerned and concentrated on defending the eastern frontier. So they clearly saw a greater threat in the east.

Dawn I must apologise but I don't have time today to answer your last question in the detail I would prefer. Internet is being reinstalled on Friday so I shall have free reign then .

As the the question of the Bulgars and the greatest enemy of Byzantium it does indeed vary from one period to another. As I see it there was always one 'great eastern enemy" Byzantium had to contend with. It was a long process over centuries of one successive eastern enemy after another wearing down Byzantium. The Turks spent 400 years completing the job, so they will get my vote as it was they who were ultimately fatal. The Bulgars were more of less damaging but never a fatal threat. Even when they besieged Constantinople under Samuel, Romanus I was sending out large eastern expeditions. The Bulgars damaged land that was not central to the survival of the Byzantine Empire and were never powerful enough to take Constantinople, making them more a serious annoyance which caused punitive damage rather than a fatal threat.

Originally posted by Dawn I'm sure Byzantine Emperor has some good stuff to add (hint hint )

I will add that I pretty much agree with the eloquent posts of my esteemed colleagues, Heraclius and Constantine XI!

It is difficult to categorize which enemy was the most belligerent or threatening to Byzantium.  One often has to look at the context of the time period, like was mentioned above.  The emperor Heraclius ascended the throne at just the right moment, and with precisely the skills needed, to combat the deadly Persian and Avar threat of the 7th century. 

The Byzantines did not have a intelligent soldier emperor- or even an emperor skilled in diplomacy-in power during the siege of Constantinople in 1204 by the Crusaders.  There was no one there to brandish cold steel or to assuage the hatred of Enrico Dandolo for Byzantium.  The imperium of the Byzantine emperors had fizzled out and had degenerated into internecine squabbling.  The Crusaders took advantage of the political crisis, as well as the disunity of the Byzantine people in Constantinople, and thoroughly trashed the city.  In essence they exacerbated the trend of decline that had already begun and eliminated any chance the Byzantines might have had for a rebound.  The Ottoman Turks dealt the death blow to the Empire, while the Crusaders had inflicted a mortal wound.

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor I will add that I pretty much agree with the eloquent posts of my esteemed colleagues, Heraclius and Constantine XI! It is difficult to categorize which enemy was the most belligerent or threatening to Byzantium.  One often has to look at the context of the time period, like was mentioned above.  The emperor Heraclius ascended the throne at just the right moment, and with precisely the skills needed, to combat the deadly Persian and Avar threat of the 7th century.  The Byzantines did not have a intelligent soldier emperor- or even an emperor skilled in diplomacy-in power during the siege of Constantinople in 1204 by the Crusaders.  There was no one there to brandish cold steel or to assuage the hatred of Enrico Dandolo for Byzantium.  The imperium of the Byzantine emperors had fizzled out and had degenerated into internecine squabbling.  The Crusaders took advantage of the political crisis, as well as the disunity of the Byzantine people in Constantinople, and thoroughly trashed the city.  In essence they exacerbated the trend of decline that had already begun and eliminated any chance the Byzantines might have had for a rebound.  The Ottoman Turks dealt the death blow to the Empire, while the Crusaders had inflicted a mortal wound.

 Very much appreciated

 The byzantine empire had the same problem the old Roman empire had, persistant and powerful tribes on its frontiers in seemingly infinite numbers.

 Alone rarely threatening the empires existance (except during the empires civil wars and fragmentation, 3rd century) but always keeping the legions pinned to the frontiers often when the legions were needed elsewhere. The barbarians tending to sack a few cities and pillage the land rather than attempting to destroy the empire or even having the means to do so.

 The decline of one of these powers as a threat to Byzantium e.g The Avars was immediately replaced by the Bulgars as the major threat in the west, the destruction of the Persian empire as a threat was immediately replaced by the Arabs in the east and so on.

 So the empire was always fighting off new and dangerous enemies as they migrated westward, sometimes travelling north of the Crimea and settling on the Danube or coming down from east of the black sea to settle on the empires eastern frontier.

 Constantine XI got it right in that there was always a constant threat from the east, an established power in direct competition with Byzantium, the nomadic tribes tending to invade the empire in its western provinces.

 Similar to the problems of the old Roman empire of the established Parthian/Sassinid empire in the east whilst barbarian tribes pounded the Danube and Rhine frontiers relentlessly. Eventually this pressure is bound to coincide with severe internal difficulties within the empire, causing the buckling of the imperial frontiers which only leads to even greater internal problems.

 The Turks where in the right place at the right time and the balance of power was broken, Byzantium having to to many invasions and holes to plug with to few armies and even fewer decent commanders to lead them.

 It should be pointed out though that Byzantine tactics and there success against these various enemies differed as often as the enemy did, sometimes a good well organised campaign was required, but sometimes the Byzantines simply bought these enemies off Justinian the great being a major fan of this tactic.

 Sometimes though the Byzantines exceptional ability for clever diplomacy or the continuation of the old maxim of *divide and conquer* sufficed. Even blowing the mind of the leader of a barbarian tribe with the majesty of Byzantiums court was used as a tactic.

 Often attempting a mixture of all these tactics and more to achieve whatever goal the empire wanted. The implementation and success of these tactics however also varied with the competance and respect the Emperor had.

OK ladies and gents I will continue on with Dawn's question, and will also remark it's great you are taking such an interest in the Byzantine Empire.

The Senate's power waxed and waned over the centuries, sometimes it was part of the central apparatus of state and other times it was an inffectual body serving as the Emperor's rubber stamp. I would see the Senate as being of use during times when the autocracy was not strong enough to sustain its executive duties to the state, but I would not see the loss of Senatorial contributions to Byzantine politics as being decisive. A number of key reasons have been identified for Byzantium's decline which are far more evident in their effects. The remission of taxes on Italian merchant vessels, the increasing employment of mercenaries rather than local troops, the loss of an effective way of harnessing the military and economic power of Byzantine territory and other factors were far more critical to the Empire's decline. While the Senate may have had a role to fill from time to time and could be useful, other aspects of effective wielding of power in Byzantium were far more decisive. The Byzantine Empire undermined its military and economic fundamentals, had it not done so it would have continued as a strong and vibrant state with or without the Senate.

Time to bring school back to order......

As a sideline to the other thread on serfs and from research the last few days on Consantine perhaps one of you fellow (we seem to have collected a few here) could elaberate on a statement I read . It went something to the effect: Constantine created a system that had a class similar to serfs or something like that (can't remember where i read it ...too many pages in the last 2 days)

I submit that the greatest threat to the Romans varied. The Eastern Roman Empire existed for some 1000 years, so that would be expected. Certainly the Goths managed to kill Valens in the 5th Century. Atilla was a threat, but after his death, the Huns were no longer a threat. The Samartians developed the technology of heavy mounted horsemen with the lance in rest, and that doomed the infantry to a second rank for some 1000 years, until the Scots and Swiss developed the infantry pike formation.

The greatest danger to the government was religion. Aside from its riots (religion, politics and the chariot races were interrelated subjects) based on religious principles, its imperial politics forbade tolerance or even  humility in religion. Constantine may have had doubts about One G-d, but he was dead set on one empire and one Emperor. Imagine the oppression of "heretics" like Coptic Christians, monophysites and such that they would embrace the relative tolerance of Islam rather than the tender mercies of the Orthodox Christians.

James Madision said that when ever a religion became established by the government, piety became fraud, faith became cowardice, and all charity became corruption. The Established Church of the Romans pushed them into wars against the Arians and Muslims, despite realistic probability of success. The Established Church also denied them the aid of Christiandom, so the Crusader states became separate kingdoms, and were separately conquered. The Venetian pirate expedition, launched by Latin Christians (aka the 4th Crusade) was the first to penetrate the Walls of Theodosius.

"

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

Remember the quote I gave on the previous page on why my Grade 8 teacher omitted the "Byzantine" section from the course syllabus"Well some parts of the course took longer and thus we had to cut some sections and that empire is not important to Western Civilization"

Wecome Justinian - we are a small but growing group.

I am curious where we all are located.  I am in Vancouver, Canada.

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've actually heard a similar response... I cried that night...

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

Anyone who says such a dumb, contradictory statement deserves it.

Originally posted by Heraclius Ive actually punched somebody with that kind of attitude  (not a proper fight) he was just getting on my nerves and he clearly deserved it

Whoa, there's still warrior in you yet. That namesake of yours is rubbing off a bit . The only fights I have been in have been because the other person was stupid or drunk (or a rather sad combination of the two).

People seriously underestimate history, many regarding it as some airy-fairy artsy trash with no hard practical value. What they fail to realize is that history is the root of just about all knowledge, nearly everything that can be learnt about has a history which is always useful to know of. I am doing a double degree of Commerce/Arts, while my Commerce mates will understand the theories of their course well enough their general lack of enthusiasm for the humanities is going to cost them career-wise. They will always have a niche to fill in accounting, marketing, human resource management etc. But if they want the top jobs they need to be wordly, cultured, culturally aware and have such humanist talents which are so important in today's rapidly changing and inceasingly globalized world.

The lack of general knowledge (historical in particulair) that High school students & grads have today is scary. I have employed over the years many young people(the nature of the buisness) and when we are bored waiting for orders etc. we play a few games music trivia (they are better at this) and real or fictional/dead or alive. So many have never even heard of say Richard the lion heart let a lone telling whether they are real or fictional. sad stae of affairs.

you are right Constantine your arts degree may be the differance that gets you that job in the end when all other things are equal. It will certainlly make you better equipt. to hand international clients.   

 The really scary thing is that even history that is common knowledge amongst older generations e.g who Caeser, Alexander the Great were etc are sometimes ive encountered totally unknown to people my own age from my generation.

 Dawn pointed out Richard the Lionheart one of the most famous historical figures of medieval times, you'd expect especially and englishman/brit to know who he was and maybe a little knowledge on what he did. However that is sadly not always the case.

 Its the kind of info you just have you dont necessarily remember being told it you just know it, like who Winston Churchill was or Henry VIII, I have however been stunned when ive encountered people here whove never heard of them from England!  Its mystifying how people can exist in this country for 18 years say and have never heard of Winston Churchill, I'd of thought it was physically impossible

This kind of stuff happens all the time. The best one was one day while plaing afor mentioned game I asked one of our young dishwashers if Julius Ceasar was real or fictional and he said fictional and I told him no he was real and we had a five minute argument about it . His potition was that he was just a charater in the dull play they did in english class. I couldn't stop laughing at this. The kid was normally such a bright one.

Welcome to Allempires, Byzanz!  It is great to have another Byzantinist on board.

Is this the issue that also features a story on the Orthodox monastic community of Mount Athos?  I have it as well. This is a great issue with some beautiful photographs.

I echo your thoughts here!  I have wondered for years why Byzantium has not been either the subject/location for a movie, or why it has not even been shown or mentioned in the context of other historical epics.  I would like to see a movie on the fall of 1453.  It would be perfect for a dramatic, action-packed epic!

 Perhaps Byzantium has recieved a blessing in disguise, by not having movies made about it or tv dramas there hasnt been a chance for it to be raped for the sake of ratings.

 Look at the people who watch historical epics, they for the most part couldnt care less nevermind understand the importance of the events they are watching, all they care about is if it is fun to watch.

 Thats a key reason why I think alot of *epics* have flopped lately, to those who dont particularly enjoy history and are just looking to see a good action packed movie. They arent going to appreciate the court intrigue, politics, deep religious aspects and general way of life that so characterises Byzantium. All they want to see is a big fight, not caring whether or not it was important in the history and survival of the Byzantine empire, just aslong as it justifies their �4.00 admission fee with enough blood and mayhem.

 Roman history has been raped almost beyond recognition to suit people who just want to see a big battle, fictional love affair etc. A true depiction of history will only truly interest those who appreciate it and study it, Byzantium has avoided the spotlight so is virtually uneffected.

 I consider this a blessing.

Getting past the obvious irony of it (the only time Greeks were united they called themselves... Romans  - it is true in a way, yet ironicaly amusing) I'd have to point out that Byzantium destroyed much, much, MUCH more than it preserved. Especially in the early "religious cleansing" period (4th-7th century AD) there is a gruesomely huge list with atrocities performed against the Greek religion, culture and people. There was a very conscious and definite effort to eradicate from the face of the earth everything that provided with a link to the Greek past.

When the "newborn" vigor of the Christian religion was at last toned down (past 7th century) the trait was reversed and the "Roman" authorities along with the Christian institution tried to preserve whatever was left from the ancient Greek legacy - they even incorporated Aristotle in the ecclesiastic corpus and rendered Christianity a foundamentally Aristotelian religion. But it was too late... the Greek wonder was already gone forever, burried under the dead weight of intolerance, religious hate and imperial authority.