Why don't Westerners romanticize Byzantium?

[Sitnam]

Eh, the Byzantines were stragglers. They’re not known for building or creating, but for enduring. Now while thats a noble trait I’m not sure it’s a positive goal for a new government to model.

[smiling_bandit]

I have to disagree with some posters here. There were definitely revolutions before the American, but I’m not at all sure how much those inspired us. There was a definite difference between the various fights against monarchies and the U.S., which was as much fighting against a Parliament and complaining that the King had abandoned them, the loyal subjects. In a weird way, the Revolution was pro-monarchy.

There was also the distinct sense in which the previous wars had been to alter the government composition, but not deny the national concept. They changed an existing political situation into a different one, whereas the Revolutionary War was developed intently to overturn the entire political order and establish a radically different form of government (even if that form was not yet set or agreed upon) wihle also creating an entire new nation. It was definitely something categorically different than what had happened previously.

Of course, it’s also fun to argue over, just like the various arguments over what of the dozens of different examples inspired the American form of government and society most, etc.

[BrainGlutton]

@smiling_bandit

I have to disagree with some posters here. There were definitely revolutions before the American, but I’m not at all sure how much those inspired us. There was a definite difference between the various fights against monarchies and the U.S., which was as much fighting against a Parliament and complaining that the King had abandoned them, the loyal subjects. In a weird way, the Revolution was pro-monarchy.

There was also the distinct sense in which the previous wars had been to alter the government composition, but not deny the national concept. They changed an existing political situation into a different one, whereas the Revolutionary War was developed intently to overturn the entire political order and establish a radically different form of government (even if that form was not yet set or agreed upon) wihle also creating an entire new nation. It was definitely something categorically different than what had happened previously.

Of course, it’s also fun to argue over, just like the various arguments over what of the dozens of different examples inspired the American form of government and society most, etc.

From The American Way of Strategy, by Michael Lind:

Many people remember vaguely that the American Revolution had something to do with taxes. A few remember that the issue was whether the power to tax lay with London or the American colonies. But this was a surrogate for the real issue: preserving the American way of life.

In the first two-thirds of the eighteenth century, the British colonists in North America developed a distinctive way of life quite different from that of their British cousins. Something like Britain’s aristocratic society endured in the South and parts of the Northeast. But in general, colonial society was characterized by a degree of middle-class prosperity and widespread property ownership unknown in any other society in the world. Not only were America’s yeoman farmers, artisans, and merchants better off than most Britons and Europeans, but also the cost of government was much lower.

The trouble began in the aftermath of the French and Indian War (Seven Years’ War) of 1754-63. The British imperial government insisted that the colonists pay more of the costs of their own defense. The colonists, however, feared that the London parliament was trying to destroy the system of colonial self-government that had grown up in the preceding generations. They remembered that the London parliament had destroyed the Scottish parliament in 1707 (it would eliminate the Irish parliament in 1801). They feared that the same thing was now happening to them. They would pay ever higher taxes, even as their colonial assemblies lost authority to the London parliament. As a result, British North America might come to resemble Ireland or Scotland, impoverished countries were absentee landlords held vast tracts of land and where major decisions were made by well-connected aristocrats and merchants in London with little or no accountability to the people whom they ruled.

<snip>

This history may be familiar but the point is not. For Americans, the independence of the United States from Britain and its organization as a democratic republic was a means to an end, not an end in itself. The end was the safeguarding of the communal right to self-government and the individual liberties that the British settlers in America had already enjoyed for generations under British rule. Americans adopted their own strategy for defending the American way of life against imperial centralization – independence as a democratic republic – only because their first choice, self-government within a federal monarchical empire, was rejected. Democratic republicanism and national independence were only two of several possible methods for preserving what by 1776 was the traditional American way of life, characterized by personal liberty, widespread property ownership, low taxes, and an inexpensive military.

[Danimal]

@smiling_bandit

I have to disagree with some posters here. There were definitely revolutions before the American, but I’m not at all sure how much those inspired us. There was a definite difference between the various fights against monarchies and the U.S., which was as much fighting against a Parliament and complaining that the King had abandoned them, the loyal subjects. In a weird way, the Revolution was pro-monarchy.

At first, yes. But after Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” and its positive reception, the Revolution definitely turned more anti-monarchical. The Declaration of Independence, too, is aimed squarely at King George, not Parliament.

There was also the distinct sense in which the previous wars had been to alter the government composition, but not deny the national concept. They changed an existing political situation into a different one, whereas the Revolutionary War was developed intently to overturn the entire political order and establish a radically different form of government (even if that form was not yet set or agreed upon) wihle also creating an entire new nation. It was definitely something categorically different than what had happened previously.

I agree with this.

[BrainGlutton]

@Danimal

At first, yes. But after Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” and its positive reception, the Revolution definitely turned more anti-monarchical. The Declaration of Independence, too, is aimed squarely at King George, not Parliament.

I read in one of Isaac Asimov’s popular histories, that was because the American people had no mystical traditional sense of loyalty to Parliament, only to the king, and that had to be attacked head-on – even though practically all the Patriots’ actual grievances were with Parliament.

[Latro]

@smiling_bandit

There was also the distinct sense in which the previous wars had been to alter the government composition, but not deny the national concept. They changed an existing political situation into a different one, whereas the Revolutionary War was developed intently to overturn the entire political order and establish a radically different form of government (even if that form was not yet set or agreed upon) wihle also creating an entire new nation. It was definitely something categorically different than what had happened previously.

This doesn’t make any sense. Those previous revolutions had changed the situations categorically differently.

The American revolution was not categorically different because it had examples to go by.

The Netherlands showed f.i. that it was possible for a state to function without a king. Now that was indeed revolutionary for the times.
Let’s not forget the Swiss were arguably the first in this, but I don’t know of any indication that they served as an example for the Dutch revolution.
Whereas there are plenty that the Dutch served as an example for the American revolution.

[RTFirefly]

@Rumor_Watkins

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.

In Virginia, fourth grade used to be the year you learned Virginia history. Since my fourth-grade year was 1962-63, I have no idea whether that’s still the case.

But I learned important things about Virginia in that year. For instance, that the Negroes were happy living as slaves, and freedom only caused them a lot of grief. OK, that taught me something about the attitudes of the Virginians responsible for our state history texts, rather than about actual history, but it was unquestionably something important to know about Virginia ca. 1962.

But I digress. Getting back to the main discussion, I have to agree with Rumor_Watkins: “I think a large part of that is because it’s more immediately traceable to the heritage of this country.” Our heritage as a nation runs back through England and medieval Europe to the Roman Empire; Byzantium is off to one side of that line. Byzantium, the Second Rome, is in the direct line of the heritage of Russia and Eastern Europe, as Simplicio was saying. The Tsars viewed Moscow as the Second Constantinople, or the Third Rome.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@NDP

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.

I’ve often thought Greek Empire would be a better name, not so much for what it says about Byzantium as for what it says about Greece.

Westerners think of Greek history as Plato and Socrates and Aristotle, and then conquest by Rome, and then Greece dropped off the map for 2,000 years, to be reborn as a backward Balkan state. Whereas in reality Greece absorbed and outlasted Rome, maintained an empire longer, and spread its civilization, alphabet, and orthodox Christianity beyond its empire throughout eastern Europe. The conquest that counted was the one by the Turks, not the Romans.

[Maeglin]

I think the question is somewhat mis-specified. We do not “romanticize” the empire of the west after the division of Diocletian, either. When we think of “Rome”, it is typically either the Rome of the late republic, the early principate, or in some contexts, the briefly-unified empire of Constantine. When was the last time anyone hearkened back to the great days of the betrayal of Stilicho or the memorable reign of Anthemius? If we are going to wonder why we do not have more affinity for Byzantium, then perhaps we should wonder whether anyone really gives a damn about the Late Antique west, either.

[foolsguinea]

@Rumor_Watkins

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.

Missourian here, never had any state history education. But I switched schools a few times, so mmv.