Why don't Westerners romanticize Byzantium?

[An_Gadai]

Well there’s always the Yeats poem, Sailing To Byzantium.

[mswas]

Other than it being ‘The East’?

[Mr.Excellent]

@Qadgop_the_Mercotan

That’s nobody’s business but the Magisterium.

[sub]sorry, good rhymes for Byzantium are hard to come by[/sub]

groans

[Jragon]

@Qadgop_the_Mercotan

That’s nobody’s business but the Magisterium.

[sub]sorry, good rhymes for Byzantium are hard to come by[/sub]

Eh, I would’ve gone with “Because you can go back to Rome, but you can’t go back to Constantinople.”

[Voyager]

Besides the other answers, Rome lived on in the Catholic Church, which surely had an influence. Many Westerners owe their languages to Rome, and in many parts of Western Europe the remains of the Empire were still clearly visible.

[Slithy_Tove]

In a watered-down legacy, American buildings from the late 19th C. in the Romanesque Revival style.

Besides the pendentive arch, there wasn’t a lot of innovation in the Byzantine Empire for later emulation. They held down the fort and made a lot of money for an incredible thousand year haul, but they were more reactionary than inventive.

[NDP]

@CalMeacham

Not well enough known, and all the sexy Roman Empire and Roman Republic happened over in – well- Rome. There’s plenty of historu in Byzantium, and it deserves more and better treatment. It gets it in Gibbon’s Decline and Fall and in some fiction (like Robert Silverburg’s time travel novel Up the Line), but not enough to give it the boost it needs.

It also doesn’t help that we don’t even call them by their right name. They referred to themselves as the Roman Empire or as Romania. Outside of the empire, they were referred to as “the Empire of the Greeks.” The “Byzantine” designation wasn’t used until 1557–over 100 years after Constantinople fell.

[Saintly_Loser]

@CalMeacham

That’s a pretty simplistic evaluation of what forms by far the largest portion of Gibbons’ Decline and Fall. That may perhaps be his overall assessment (to tell the truth, I don’t recall – it’s been many years since I read it), but more than half of his multi-volume work is not devoted to sneering at the Eastern Empire. If he felt that way about it, he probably wouldn’t have written it. Having slogged through the work, I ca n attest that it’s not a catalogue of condemnations running over a thousand years of history.

Well, sure, it’s simplistic. What do you expect in a one-line answer? But I do remember Gibbons being somewhat contemptuous of the Byzantines. Not dismissive – he certainly did write enough about them, as you point out. It’s been years since I slogged through Decline and Fall, but I do remember that.

The picture I got of the eastern Empire from Runciman, and from Anna Comnenus, was entirely different from what I’d picked up years before from Gibbons.

[foolsguinea]

Because they’re Westerners. Rome was the Holy City of western Europe. Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul was** eastern.** Heck, one of the Crusades even sacked Constantinople.

[Kobal2]

@foolsguinea

Because they’re Westerners. Rome was the Holy City of western Europe. Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul was** eastern.** Heck, one of the Crusades even sacked Constantinople.

FWIW, when he heard that not only had the crusaders laid siege to Constantinople (and captured it, and sacked it in the most brutal fashion), but his own *clergy *had suppressed his repeated injunctions to lift the siege and get back to trying to reach the Levant, the Pope was furious and made numerous proclamations to the amount of “You bunch of fucking asshats !”.

Of course, by then the damage had been done, and the relations between East and West remained decidedly frigid from then on.

[Gary_Baldy]

@Slithy_Tove

Besides the pendentive arch, there wasn’t a lot of innovation in the Byzantine Empire for later emulation. They held down the fort and made a lot of money for an incredible thousand year haul, but they were more reactionary than inventive.

Ah-hmm… I believe there was innovation in architecture with the Hagia Sophia, which I believe was emulated elsewhere…

[Captain_Amazing]

@Kobal2

FWIW, when he heard that not only had the crusaders laid siege to Constantinople (and captured it, and sacked it in the most brutal fashion), but his own *clergy *had suppressed his repeated injunctions to lift the siege and get back to trying to reach the Levant, the Pope was furious and made numerous proclamations to the amount of “You bunch of fucking asshats !”.

From a letter from the pope to the crusaders after the sacking of Zara (Zadar):

Therefore we advise and strongly urge you noblemen, and by this Apostolic letter we command you, that you neither deceive yourselves nor allow yourselves to be deceived by others that you are behaving in some pious way, for this will result in harm to your souls, which God forbid! But rather you should abandon these frivolous and unnecessary commitments and sail to aid the Holy Land and avenge the injury to the cross; there you will gain booty from the enemy which, if you make a delay in Romania, you may perhaps be forced to extort from [your] brothers. For otherwise we shall be unable, and nor ought we, to promise you the grace of remission [from your sins]. We want you to be clearly mindful of the terms of our prohibition: that we forbid you, under threat of excommunication, to invade or dare to harm the lands of Christians, unless these should wilfully hinder your journey or because some other just or necessary reason should occur. If you should pursue any other course of action, you should take care to follow the advice of our legate, but we warn you not to act lightly against these instructions. However, to prevent the guilt of the doge and people of Venice bringing harm to you, we order your to fulfil our wishes by delivering to them the letters which we have directed to them, and to make these publicly known among you. Any delay in this will lead to sin.

[Tamerlane]

I know everybody hates this sort of thing - but just as a reminder, it is Gibbon and Gibbon’s, not Gibbons and Gibbons’.

I do it too and curse myself for it :).

[Odesio]

@Mr.Excellent

American history education is notoriously spotty, but Rome is always given full and deferential treatment.

You’re joking, right? In grade school through high school we spent far more time on American history (as sparse as it was) and covered a lot more of that than we ever did Roman history.

[Gary_Baldy]

@Odesio

You’re joking, right? In grade school through high school we spent far more time on American history (as sparse as it was) and covered a lot more of that than we ever did Roman history.

I lived in New York and South Carolina. When I lived in New York, my education dealt alot more with the history of NY than SC; however, when I moved to SC, it focused more on SC than NY. There must be some reason for this mysterious gap in the histories of other places compared to where one lives…

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Gary_Baldy

I lived in New York and South Carolina. When I lived in New York, my education dealt alot more with the history of NY than SC; however, when I moved to SC, it focused more on SC than NY. There must be some reason for this mysterious gap in the histories of other places compared to where one lives…

who learned about the history of their state? grades 6-12 were jammed with the world in the 20th century and the other 1800+ years that the U.S. didn’t exist.

[salinqmind]

I can tell you this, where I went to school, mention the word ‘Byzantium’ and after a resounding silence, someone might have guessed “one of those things on the elements chart”? Whereas everyone knew ‘Rome’ was the capital of It’ly.

[Kobal2]

@Captain_Amazing

From a letter from the pope to the crusaders after the sacking of Zara (Zadar):

Yes, well, that’s Pope-speak for “You bunch of fucking asshats !”, isn’t it ? Or maybe “goddamned asshats”, now that I think about it.

[John_Mace]

@Simplicio

Also worth noting that Byzantium was romanticized in Eastern Europe and Russia, where the Greek Orthodox church was dominant, and the Tzars billed Moscow as the New Constantinople. However the rise of Communism and the squashing of the Church there presumably put an end to that tradition.

That was my first thought. Western Europe was Roman Catholic. Byzantium turned into the Eastern Orthodox world.

[BrainGlutton]

Westerners have romanticized Byzantium, all right. Just not in a political sense. From The City in Mind: Notes on the Urban Condition, by James Howard Kunstler, chapter on Rome:

. . . As the lights went out in Rome, the Eastern Empire in Asia Minor preserved some (but not all) of the culture’s technical virtuosity. The center of Roman life and imperial administration moved east across the Mediterranean in order to get away from the disorderly Germanic peoples who were making life in Italy so difficult. The new center at Constantinople was a different Rome, peopled largely by Romanized Greeks, where Latin was the language of government and Greek was spoken in the streets. The Eastern emperors were Christians, in some cases exceedingly preoccupied with matters of theology and doctrine. It was a Rome that would eventually cease to be Roman.

In monumental building, they adapted the basilica from the familiar Roman hall of civil administration and added a dome to it to house the ceremonies of the Christian church – an apt reflection of the transfer of moral authority that occurred. . . . As a rule, in what we would come to call Byzantine architecture, embellishment is turned inward. The classical orders appear only on the inside – suggesting the correspondent inward-turning of the Eastern Roman Empire’s political culture, which would be increasingly based on court intrigue and treachery with the cultural memory of the res publica fading away to nothing. The church, after all, was an explicit rival to the pagan classical legacy. There are no successors to the Hagia Sofia, and indeed the urban world of the Byzantines would become more and more an orientalized maze of passageways and chambers dedicated to Christian mysticism or palace conspiracies, with the public realm drained of civic meaning and reduced to the marketplace.

After A.D. 476, Constantinople could not control Western Europe politically or culturally. . . . From Italy to Britain and Spain to Germany, life grew increasingly chaotic and impoverished. Skills were forgotten, especially technical skills in construction that required an enormous scale of social organization in an urban setting. People inhabited the shells of a civilization that seemed ever more lost and remote. We call this period the Dark Ages.

With the West in such disarray, Constantinople by default faced east, and mutated into a Byzantine Empire that made fine arts of despotism, violence and cruelty. The city itself, strategically positioned on the strait between Black Sea and the Mediterranean, became a rich cosmopolitan center estimated at times to contain more than a million souls. But it enjoyed material wealth with a steady erosion of political capital in a worlde undergoing drastic reorganization. Ethnologically, the Byzantine Empire was increasingly caught between contested territories and restless movements of ambitious tribal peoples. In the 630s, Islam pushed aggressively up from Arabia into what is now Israel, Syria and Iraq. The Balkan peninsula to the north was an incessant battleground. The empire’s one colonial frontier opened to the backward immensity of Russia, where the Byzantines went to spread Christianity and get raw materials. Otherwise, they were surrounded by water and fractious enemies. Finally, an obscure tribe of nomads called the Seljuk Turks ventured from the far east to what was then Persia and is now Iran, became Islamicized and, with superb cavalry, swept westward around 1071 to overwhelm the peninsula of Asia Minor, a military tour de force down a geographic cul-de-sac. The Byzantine Empire was reduced to little more than the fortified city on the Bosporus, which was almost continually besieged afterward by one group or another.