Influence of the Byzantine Empire on European history

[The Stranger]

please share your thoughts.

[Keba]

Depends on which way you mean. For one, they founded the Orthodox strain of Christianity, a pretty big influence right there.

Second, they were the conduit through which achievements of the older Roman Empire in the field of law and legal science was passed on to Europe, so, in effect, the modern legal system (not the Anglo-Saxon one, but still ...) is their doing (by extention, though the Emperor most responsible is generally considered the last Roman Empiror, after which the Greek speaking majority came into play).

Third, and perhaps the most important, despite their many failures, they held the Muslims off for a long enough time. Had they not done so for as long as they have, much more of Europe would have fallen to Islam than the parts that had. By the time the Empire fell, feudalism was on it's way out, the flank in Spain was secured and some decisive technical improvements had come into being in Christian Europe at the time.

It's a bit late here, and these are all I can think of from the top of my head. There's probably more.

[Innocentius]

Depends on which way you mean. For one, they founded the Orthodox strain of Christianity, a pretty big influence right there.

Second, they were the conduit through which achievements of the older Roman Empire in the field of law and legal science was passed on to Europe, so, in effect, the modern legal system (not the Anglo-Saxon one, but still ...) is their doing (by extention, though the Emperor most responsible is generally considered the last Roman Empiror, after which the Greek speaking majority came into play).

Third, and perhaps the most important, despite their many failures, they held the Muslims off for a long enough time. Had they not done so for as long as they have, much more of Europe would have fallen to Islam than the parts that had. By the time the Empire fell, feudalism was on it's way out, the flank in Spain was secured and some decisive technical improvements had come into being in Christian Europe at the time.

It's a bit late here, and these are all I can think of from the top of my head. There's probably more.

One thing to remember is that the Byzantines themselves never considered Islam in such a negatvie way as the Pope and Catholic Christians did (and do). To them, they were not the big bad guys in the same way that Catholics regarded them. So it's a bit incorrect to refer to the Byzantines as some sort of shield or buffert for Christianity, since to them it was just another, potential, enemy. Also, after the "first wave" of Islam had been beaten back sometime by the 9th or 10th century, Muslims never did any serious attempts in "conquering" neither Europe nor Byzantine lands. Indeed they did, but not to promote Islam, only to expand their personal kingdoms (or in the case of the Ottomans/Osmans: empire).

Just wanted to have that said before anyone brought it up. I've heard all kinds of stories about the great Byz against the evil Muslims....Byzantium is not really my field although it's very interesting, so I'll leave it to others to answer on topic.

[Keba]

Just wanted to have that said before anyone brought it up. I've heard all kinds of stories about the great Byz against the evil Muslims....

Actually, the way things were at the time, the Islamic world was more advanced than that of Christianity in many ways. What I meant is that Byzantium was a buffer that prevented direct contact between Catholics and Muslims, which would have been a recipe for disaster. The Catholics of the time would not have thought twice about attacking, and would have been promptly crushed. Even with the advantages the Christian world had in the 15th century, they were barely able to hold a line against the Ottomans, I don't think that prior to that the Catholic world would have had much chance.

I suppose the result would have been akin to the forming of the Roman Empire. As one threat is conquered, a new one arises and needs to be conquered.

So, they were a buffer in a more positive sense, otherwise there would have been a lot more dying.

[KrooK]

Before we start rest of conversation you have to believe me into 1 thing.
Before about XIII/XIV century western world was just a band of barbarians comparing with Muslims. Why? Because before Thomas of Akwin christianity could not cope gaining knowledge with faith. On the other hand Koran tells "after knowledge to even to China". So sslam was much more modern than christianity.

For the long time Bizantine Empire was as modern as islam and it could fight with then on equal terms. But it was too weak to fight with all united muslims (especially after conquering Constantinopole by crusaders).

When it falls, many scientist emigrated to western europe - they bring muslim knowledge, greek culture and bizantine style bureaucracy theory :). Actually we can't tell that they bring roman law to western europe because europe already knew that law (quite well).

On the other hand monks Ciril and Metody converted half of Balkans. When christianity divided into catholics and orthodoxes, that people were under leadership of Bizantine. Later Russian Great Prince accepted orthodox ceremonial.

Bizantine merchans invented some interesting financial instruments like checkques.

Bizantine gave Europe much things but we must remember that they couldn't use many things they invent. Thats why they lost.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

Lets say Constaninople fell in the second Arab siege in 718. Can you find one European power that would actually be able to stop the Arabs, Keep in mind that the Slavs and the Bulgars as pagan would be highly suspectible to convert to Islam giving more life to the Arab conquests.

PS. Let's not even think about Constantinople falling in the first Arab siege in 674. There would be absolutely nothing that any European state could do to prevent Islam from reaching Cadiz...the long way around!

[Julian the apostate]

i highly doubt that much could be done to stop an islamic army at that point but then again a great many battles have been fought and the tide was turned suprisingly. I could see the bulgars fighting against foreign rule and when u consider it. they gave the byzantines some nasty stings. Also you have the further lengthening of supply lines

[Sarmatian]

After fall of constantinople, lot of byzantium artists and thinkers came to italy, and triggered the renneisance (is this the correct spelling?)...
Well, maybe not triggered, but definately helped it...

Holding of arabs, and converting slavs is also an important thing. As keba said, that did give the rest of europe time do "catch up" on the muslims...

[Mailman653]

Just curious, had Byzantium survived into today, would it of become something similiar to the Holy See? Like a center for the Othrodox religion/leadership?

[Keba]

Actually we can't tell that they bring roman law to western europe because europe already knew that law (quite well).

The books used to rediscover Roman Law in Europe in the 11th and 12th century were, in fact, from former Byzantine holdings. Though the original works were older and from the time of the Eastern Roman Empire (prior to it becoming Greek), it was Byzantium that maintained the system long enough for the works to pass into the hands of Italian scholars, who then spread it outward.

As an interesting tidbit, the Byzantines understood and allowed divorce for the entirety of their existance (barring the time of Justinian). Mutual divorce and a divorce stemming from justified reasons were allowed completely, while a unilateral divorce only cost money (in the form of a fine).


Just curious, had Byzantium survived into today, would it of become something similiar to the Holy See? Like a center for the Othrodox religion/leadership?

Unlikely. It was the Emperors that ruled the Church in Byznatium (for the most part), and the Church was always seen as an agent and aspect of the state. It is possible that the two would have split over time, however, Constantinople becoming something akin to the Holy See is highly unlikely. Though you never know, weird things have been known to happen in history. :laugh4:

[The Stranger]

I wonder who would have won when the Moorish/Almohad dynasties met the borders of the turkish/egyptian dynasties somewhere in europe. I think that would be the biggest fight in those times.

I do believe however that would Constantinople have fallen in 674 nobody would have stopped muslim expansion atleast into italy. Would they however defeated the Byzantines in the second siege, i do see hope for a European/christian stance in europe. All the quarelling petty kingdoms would combine and we would have seen the first crusade ages earlier. But again the would be attack from 2 sides because the moorish were also progressing into europe. The Franks won at poitiers maybe the combined christian force could defeat an arabian army somewhere.

This is the kinda stuff i wanted to know, but i really like to continue this, its really interesting.

[DukeofSerbia]

State under name Byzantine Empire NEVER exist in history!

[The Stranger]

Yeah be an smartass... You know, no one called WWI, WWI at that time...

you get my point dont you

[DukeofSerbia]

I don’t have high opinion about Eastern Roman Empire (I don’t like and use term “Byzantine Empire”). Actually, I have very bad opinion about them.



For one, they founded the Orthodox strain of Christianity, a pretty big influence right there.

My dear friend, how they founded Orthodox Christianity? Christianity was always Orthodox and what later happened in West has nothing with it.:book:



Third, and perhaps the most important, despite their many failures, they held the Muslims off for a long enough time. Had they not done so for as long as they have, much more of Europe would have fallen to Islam than the parts that had. By the time the Empire fell, feudalism was on it's way out, the flank in Spain was secured and some decisive technical improvements had come into being in Christian Europe at the time.

Partly true. Why everybody forget Khazars? :wall:



Actually, the way things were at the time, the Islamic world was more advanced than that of Christianity in many ways. What I meant is that Byzantium was a buffer that prevented direct contact between Catholics and Muslims, which would have been a recipe for disaster.

How they were buffer? Did you forget Iberian Peninsula? And in Balkan are first Orthodox countries and then Roman Catholic. And when Arabs advanced Christianity was one. And Slavs were pagans.



One thing to remember is that the Byzantines themselves never considered Islam in such a negatvie way as the Pope and Catholic Christians did (and do). To them, they were not the big bad guys in the same way that Catholics regarded them.

Can you give examples? I will appreciate that. :book:
And don’t quote Lukas Notaras ("Better the Sultan's Turban than the Pope's Mitre").



For the long time Bizantine Empire was as modern as islam and it could fight with then on equal terms. But it was too weak to fight with all united muslims (especially after conquering Constantinopole by crusaders).

United Muslims after conquest of Constantinople by Crusades?



On the other hand monks Ciril and Metody converted half of Balkans.

Not true.



When christianity divided into catholics and orthodoxes, that people were under leadership of Bizantine.

Not true.



Later Russian Great Prince accepted orthodox ceremonial.

Conversion of Rus’ was 989.



Lets say Constaninople fell in the second Arab siege in 718. Can you find one European power that would actually be able to stop the Arabs, Keep in mind that the Slavs and the Bulgars as pagan would be highly suspectible to convert to Islam giving more life to the Arab conquests.

PS. Let's not even think about Constantinople falling in the first Arab siege in 674. There would be absolutely nothing that any European state could do to prevent Islam from reaching Cadiz...the long way around!

What would happen if Arabs weren’t defeated at Poitiers 732 by Franks? :yes:



Just curious, had Byzantium survived into today, would it of become something similiar to the Holy See? Like a center for the Othrodox religion/leadership?

It is hard to say, but no. There is no supremacy in Orthodox Church. Every autocephaly Orthodox Church is equal. :2thumbsup:



I do believe however that would Constantinople have fallen in 674 nobody would have stopped muslim expansion atleast into italy. Would they however defeated the Byzantines in the second siege, i do see hope for a European/christian stance in europe. All the quarelling petty kingdoms would combine and we would have seen the first crusade ages earlier. But again the would be attack from 2 sides because the moorish were also progressing into europe. The Franks won at poitiers maybe the combined christian force could defeat an arabian army somewhere.

Why Christian Europe under Papal supremacy would care for Roman Empire? They were competition! Franks stopped Arabs at Poitiers 732. In northern Iberia were formed Christian countries. If Roman Empire would fall, then Arabs would have to defeat pagan Slavs and Bulgars (around lower Danube). The problem of Roman Empire was that Slavs overrun almost whole Balkan Peninsula and modern Greece (including Peloponnesus) which cut of resources. Plus Arabs tried to penetrate passing through Caucasus and went behind into Europe.
BUT, they were stopped by Khazars. It was in 730-737. Do you know that Khazars had failed siege of Bagdad (Capital of Caliphat) in 730? After that Arabs counterattacked and defeated Khazars but couldn’t break through Caucasus. We all know why historians refuse to talk about it… :thumbsdown:

You want more? You heard for Emperor Leo IV the Khazar?

P.S.
Speculations are very sensitive and hard…:yes:

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

What would happen if Arabs weren’t defeated at Poitiers 732 by Franks?

732 is after 718 and a long time after 674.

I don't know what's your beef with the Byzantine empire but it certainly makes you biased.

[Innocentius]

Can you give examples? I will appreciate that. :book:
And don’t quote Lukas Notaras ("Better the Sultan's Turban than the Pope's Mitre").

Don't have any real examples, no. I thought that was just common knowledge. I've never really heard of any Orhtodox crusades or anything like it, and for what I know, the Byzantines simply didn't see it all in Good vs. Bad-way like the Catholics did.



What would happen if Arabs weren’t defeated at Poitiers 732 by Franks? :yes:


To be honest, probably nothing. Poitiers/Tours wasn't that significant and the Muslims didn't really have any interest in expanding further north.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

Not to mention that in Tours it was a largish raiding party that was caught when it was returning with the loot. The Byzantines fought numerous such parties and it was adviced to attack such parties when they were returning laden with loot.

[The Stranger]

Why Christian Europe under Papal supremacy would care for Roman Empire? They were competition! Franks stopped Arabs at Poitiers 732. In northern Iberia were formed Christian countries. If Roman Empire would fall, then Arabs would have to defeat pagan Slavs and Bulgars (around lower Danube). The problem of Roman Empire was that Slavs overrun almost whole Balkan Peninsula and modern Greece (including Peloponnesus) which cut of resources. Plus Arabs tried to penetrate passing through Caucasus and went behind into Europe.
BUT, they were stopped by Khazars. It was in 730-737. Do you know that Khazars had failed siege of Bagdad (Capital of Caliphat) in 730? After that Arabs counterattacked and defeated Khazars but couldn’t break through Caucasus. We all know why historians refuse to talk about it… :thumbsdown:

You want more? You heard for Emperor Leo IV the Khazar?

P.S.
Speculations are very sensitive and hard…:yes:

I knew of failed siege by the Khazars, yes.

Plus Arabs tried to penetrate passing through Caucasus and went behind into Europe.

I don't understand that sentence... The Caucasus are no way in to europe, not for the Arabs.

And speculations are indeed sensitive but they are nothing more but speculations so there is no need to get angry...

[KrooK]

Duke - why not true. Isn't Serbia orthodox country, same like Croatia or Macedonia?

By United Muslims I mean Turkish Empire after Mongol Invasion and Tamerlan.

[Watchman]

The selfsame Ottomans who only managed to take over Egypt in the 1500s and were forever warring with the Persians to little avail ? Nevermind now that the Barbary Coast states and the assorted technically Muslim steppe nomads only listened to them whenever they felt like it...

"United Muslims" my boot.

[Reenk Roink]

The Siege of Constantinople in 717 was a helluva more important than Tours (which has been overrated ever since Gibbon). Just think about it:

The greatest city in the world, with its riches, strategic, and symbolic importance vs. a relatively backward country filled with “unwashed barbarians”.

Why did the Umayyads, Abbasids, and Sejulks keep pushing into Asia Minor for all those years, but not past the Pyrenees after their initial attempts?

On topic, the Byzantine Empire is one of my favorite civilizations and periods along with the Hellenistic Era and Rise of Roman Republic, and The Bronze Ages.

Byzantines were a great and fascinating civilization. :book:

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

State under name Byzantine Empire NEVER exist in history

State under name Eastern Roman Empire never existed in history. It's Byzantine Empire, because it is named after Byzantium (Constantinople) which the capital was founded on.

Really they called themselves Romans, and Constantinople was known to them as Nova Roma.

[Justiciar]

Duke - why not true. Isn't Serbia orthodox country, same like Croatia or Macedonia?
Croatia's definately Catholic. Not too sure about Serbia though. I'd imagine that it had a mixture of both but was predominantly Orthodox. Don't hold me to that though.

[The Stranger]

State under name Eastern Roman Empire never existed in history. It's Byzantine Empire, because it is named after Byzantium (Constantinople) which the capital was founded on.

Really they called themselves Romans, and Constantinople was known to them as Nova Roma.

I know they called themselves Romanoi/Romaio (I don't know the good spelling) but did they call Constantinople (Byzantium before Constantine) Nova Roma? Never heard of that... But instead of discussing the name of the empire which is not important (not in this thread) please let us continue on the influence the Byzantine Empire or whatever you like to call it on the history (and Culture) of Europe/Europa or... isnt that the right name either...?

[KrooK]

Sorry guys
I made mistake
I meant Bulgaria not Croatia

[Conradus]

I know they called themselves Romanoi/Romaio (I don't know the good spelling) but did they call Constantinople (Byzantium before Constantine) Nova Roma? Never heard of that...

Constantine gave the city the name of Nova Roma I believe, later they mostly used Constantinople.

I see the Byzantine Empire mostly as a buffer against Islam, which they managed to do during some ages -the reasons for this may vary- and a centre of knowledge that would later trigger the Renaissance.

[Watchman]

As buffers go, the nigh-uncrossable geography of the Balkans and Central Europe worked kind of better (why do you think the East/West Rome splitline went there as well ?). The Ottomans, with the leanest meanest adminstration and logistics setups of the time, were barely able to campaign across it, and were clearly at the end of their leash even before Vienna...

Big-ass rivers and endless mountain ranges rotten with pesky and warlike minor powers fortified to Hell and back don't make for the best invasion route in general.

And good job forgetting the Muslim contribution to the Renaissance...

[The Stranger]

yeah, muslims translated many greek (mostly greek i thought) manuscripts. while most original were lost they are the reason a lot is/became known to us. they definitly saved a lot of info.

as for buffer goes, the Byzantine Empire was definitly a good buffer, it kept their enemies busy till 1453...

[Conradus]

As buffers go, the nigh-uncrossable geography of the Balkans and Central Europe worked kind of better (why do you think the East/West Rome splitline went there as well ?). The Ottomans, with the leanest meanest adminstration and logistics setups of the time, were barely able to campaign across it, and were clearly at the end of their leash even before Vienna...

Big-ass rivers and endless mountain ranges rotten with pesky and warlike minor powers fortified to Hell and back don't make for the best invasion route in general.
I take it, this was a reply to my post? If not my apologies.
Well, politically and militarily the Byzantine Empire was the main buffer against Islam. It was only after 1453 that the Ottomans reached Vienna, wasn't it?
Of course you're rigth in stating the Balkan as another buffer, which greatly lessened the amount of supplies an Ottoman invasion force could carry/had left before entering enemy grounds.



And good job forgetting the Muslim contribution to the Renaissance...
This is still about the Byzantine Empire and, though I don't want to ignore their influence and contributions to science/passing on ancient knowledge, most of the passing-on of that knowledge happened by Byzantine scholars after or near the fall of Byzantium.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

@Watchman

Well, I disagree. If you check a geographical map of the Balkans you will see that it is a straight line from Edirne to Vienna across the Bulgarian and Hungarian plains. The only part that can be considered hard to go through is the part between the lower Carpathian range (almost NW to SE) and the north Rodopi range. The national geographic map utility shows this well enough.

[Watchman]

Well, politically and militarily the Byzantine Empire was the main buffer against Islam. It was only after 1453 that the Ottomans reached Vienna, wasn't it?
Of course you're rigth in stating the Balkan as another buffer, which greatly lessened the amount of supplies an Ottoman invasion force could carry/had left before entering enemy grounds.The point is that Byzantium wasn't exactly good at "projecting force" from the Hellas and Asia Minor the hard way over the Balkans either; the superb Ottoman support systems allowed them just enough more strategic reach to flounder before the walls of Vienna, but it is highly dubious if it would actually have changed much had they succeeded; too far away from the heartlands and primary staging areas is too far away, regardless of how many big cities you manage to capture (and turn over to local vassals out of practical necessity...).

The most viable entrance for an Islamic invasion of Europe would really have been Italy, I think. It's reachable enough for a firm foothold to be established, large and prosperous enough to serve as the main staging area for further advances, and thanks to the Alps and the seas relatively easy to hold (although the Alps kind of get in the way of further progress too...). This was tried too in the whatwasit, 700-800s or thereabouts, but the bridgeheads on the peninsula were contained and eventually reduced - internal turbulence in the Muslim world doubtless partially contributed to this. Kinda hard to support expansion overseas when you're busy with civil wars and power struggles you know ?


...most of the passing-on of that knowledge happened by Byzantine scholars after or near the fall of Byzantium.*cough* Aren't you sort of forgetting the inadvert service the Muslims did by keeping hold of and expanding on the texts of "the Ancients", and the way these filtered to the Catholic cultural sphere through various channels (the Reconquista being one; captured Moorish libraries quickly saw their contents picked up by curious Christian clergy and other literati)...? Italy, the nursery of the Renaissance, was also the part of Europe with just about the longest and most consistent peaceful contacts with the Islamic world, and most parts were in the habit of cheerfully giving the Church the finger if it had complaints (Stalin's famed "how many divisions does the Pope possess?" being fairly literal in this case...).

[Watchman]

Well, I disagree. If you check a geographical map of the Balkans you will see that it is a straight line from Edirne to Vienna across the Bulgarian and Hungarian plains. The only part that can be considered hard to go through is the part between the lower Carpathian range (almost NW to SE) and the north Rodopi range. The national geographic map utility shows this well enough.If you check the map you'll also note that as the bird flies Paris is about closer to Vienna than Constantinopole/Istanbul.

You're also cheerfully ignoring the whole lot of quite rugged terrain with nonexistent roads and a few huge rivers along the way, plus the little detail all the unfriendly locals along the way (who had to be reduced one way or another if you were to campaign beyond them) were holed up in the typical Medieval European proliferation of strong fortified places. To boot the Ottomans had to use the routes that a major army required, and their enemies knew those just as well if not better. They may have had one of the best siege trains of the period, but it was still glacially slow to move around (and IIRC the Hungarian river fleet managed to sink a large portion at one point during first Vienna campaign...) and they still had to work their arses off to capture even the minor places.

Which the unfriendly locals/treacherous vassals/sundry bandits & warlords might as well as not recapture after the Ottoman main army had to go home for winter and/or was busy with the Mamluks, Persians, Tatars or something on the Mediterranean.

[The Stranger]

but lack of supplies wasnt the main reason (if it was a reason at all) why they lost at vienna (i dunno how many sieges on vienna there were but i meant that one in 17th century where the poles came to aid)

[Watchman]

They managed to lay siege to Vienna exactly twice, far as I know. First in the early 1500s and again late in the 1600s (and the relief force back then consisted of more than Poles, BTW). And you can bet the sheer difficulty of hauling an army of the necessary size and power that far, in those conditions, and given the time it took (which their enemies could put to use gathering allies and dispatching relief forces, and which was directly off the viable campaign season before the snow came), quite contributed to their failure.

Or that there were only two in total to begin with. Most of the time when Ottoman main armies went up the Balkans they did so to fight someone or something closer by, and in the main holding the front was up to local clients, allies and suchlike and what (often quite considerable, given that it usually took the Ottomans major campaigns to subordinate them in the first place) armed forces they could muster.

Anyway, to get back to the topic, if the Ottomans with their organization and logistics that were long the envy of the world could not effectively push through the Balkans, what chances would a 700s-800s Middle Eastern army have ? All the more so as whatever viceroy were put in charge of a conquered Constantinopole would most definitely not have kept taking orders from the Caliph in Baghdad very long, what with the tremendously rich and strategically well-placed provinces under his authority and the natural fortress of Anatolia (another geostrategic barrier) between them...

Plus the Avars, Khazars, Hungarian-Magyars and the Rus (exactly what combination depending on the exact date) weren't too far away either; the Byzantines fought a fair few wars with them, the steppe extended quite far down the western coastline of the Black Sea, and they were always a factor in the turbulent relations between the Byzantines and their Muslim neighbours. What havoc they might have played on hypothetical Muslim advances in Central Europe is anyone's guess.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

I think Byzantium was the main defence from Islamic attack. After that, well they would have to get through the dreaded Balkan mountain range. Italy not quite so.

[Watchman]

You might want to ask the Byzantines how easy it actually is to "hop" over the Adriatic from Greece though...

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

You might want to ask the Byzantines how easy it actually is to "hop" over the Adriatic from Greece though...

Well, at the Age of Justinian, they never went through the Adriatic. After Belisarius defeated the Vandals in North Africa in 534, he attacked Sicily and Italy capturing Rome in 536 and the capital of Ravenna in 540

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Sorry, double post

[Kralizec]

Actually we can't tell that they bring roman law to western europe because europe already knew that law (quite well).

The corpus iuris civilis made during the reign of Justinian, did make its way to western Europe and was used there to study Roman law- and because Roman law was used to govern commerce between different nationalities, the CIC was used.

[AntiochusIII]

I don't really see Byzantium as the final bulwark against Islamic Europe, but one has to take into account that the "nationalism" (or at least anti-evil infidel invaders-ism) wasn't as strong during the more "flexible" periods of the 600s-800s as during the 15th century, when it finally fell. Islam could've pushed much farther into central Europe culturally if not as a united Imperial power that the Ottomans were.

And while the Ottomans certainly did not "unite" the Islamic world, there's no denying that they were without a doubt the leaders (though with constant challenges from the Safavids in particular, them being Shia and directly in opposition to the Sunni Ottomans as such, and being the only other state with the might and splendor to "claim the leadership," so to speak, disregarding the Mughal Empire eastward which probably had no interest in that -- admittedly, Morocco also tried for the Caliphate thing, if only for a short while) the premier power, the very top dog of the Islamic world. If anything, the very decline of the Ottomans alone was enough to leave a lasting effect on the Islamic world's own cultural decline. It was the last and arguably the greatest of those Islamic states with lots of scholars and lavish courts and all the scientific developments/cultural preservation things going on.

But since this thread is about Byzantium, my opinion is that it is a very important state to European cultural development and also something of an anachronism while at it. Its organized beaurecracy system (though long destroyed before Osman's rise) arguably influenced the Ottomans to create a similar state. If anything, the Ottomans prized the City, considering its conquest to be something of a key to their Imperial destiny so to speak.

Moreover, as is the nature of history, the Byzantines played their roles as "that power in the East" when it comes to Italian politics for a very long time, first as That Surviving Rome in the East, then as oppressors for a short while; then as constant meddlers and a minor player for a very long time, though not to very much effect; then as a prize to take, and finally something of a very weak ally against the rising Turks. And all that time as a trade competitor. They also had their roles in the Balkans; sometimes rulers, sometimes not.

Byzantine scholars weren't really the most productive of the lot, though, all else considering. Too much of them are about theology and too little Greek-ish, humanistic, "Hellenistic" stuff. Though one must never rule out the preservation work. Without them even more of the classical literature would've been lost.

The Fall of Constantinople in 1453, much have been made of; but most of it is actually symbolic. The Turks were conquering parts of Southeastern Europe long before they finally done away with the dying Empire; though the act did mark the end of Byzantium's role as the force between the East and Hungary and beyond.

The "Last Rome" mystique, however, is more of a modern invention than reality at the time.

Also, I myself attribute a part of their decline to the rise of magnates and other such feudalistic things; weakening potential manpower base especially after the loss of Anatolia. Feudalism and the nobility having too much power always spell death to great empires and even great places. Poland, anyone? :thumbsdown: Used to be an amazingly free and culturally advanced place 'til those goddamn nobles paralyzed the state and left it piecemeal to ravenous neighbors... Bohemia also, a single really dumb Polish prince and all those advancements and free peasantry gone.

[kataphraktoi]

The Siege of Constantinople in 717 was a helluva more important than Tours (which has been overrated ever since Gibbon). Just think about it:

The greatest city in the world, with its riches, strategic, and symbolic importance vs. a relatively backward country filled with “unwashed barbarians”.

Why did the Umayyads, Abbasids, and Sejulks keep pushing into Asia Minor for all those years, but not past the Pyrenees after their initial attempts?

On topic, the Byzantine Empire is one of my favorite civilizations and periods along with the Hellenistic Era and Rise of Roman Republic, and The Bronze Ages.

Byzantines were a great and fascinating civilization.

I disagree with u on many things in the backroom, but the fact that u like Byzantine civilisation means I love you now. :clown:

[The Stranger]

the feudal system isnt the best one i'd say... but with the lack of communications come up with a better one for that time... and not some kind of communism that can only live in theories...

[AntiochusIII]

the feudal system isnt the best one i'd say... but with the lack of communications come up with a better one for that time... and not some kind of communism that can only live in theories...Well, excessive feudalism is what ruined Poland (how can you survive where a single corrupt, foreign-bribed bastard can paralyze the entire nation with his "liberum veto"; and what if that bastard is interested in subjugating the very much free and productive masses into his personal serfs?), weakened Byzantium (while the loss of Anatolia is the most devastating factor involving the Empire's manpower crisis at the eve of the Comnenian dynasty and beyond, the theme system formerly in place could've easily maintained in the Balkans a decent manpower base for its wars. The kind of manpower base that don't bankrupt the country like excessive reliance on mercenaries would; and guess who pretty much were against the themata idea from the beginning? The magnates -- nobles. If anything, the Bulgar Slayer's empire was carved from the free peasantry that fought in Byzantine armies), and devastated Bohemia, among others.

Besides, how much stronger France became when it transformed from a collection of feuding, unruly nobles into a centralized state? And why was England -- which was quite poor compare to her great neighbor across the sea; population, economic, or otherwise -- so successful as a nation? Also, was Rome in its heyday feudal, with decentralized power based on land and serfs distributed to nobles and all that?

There were alternatives that were more effective than Feudalism even during the ages where communication wasn't as smooth as today and a state's "natural limit" (that was the phenomenon with Rome and the Ottomans and many others) was much smaller than what the British Empire was allowed to be.

[Kralizec]

I don't know about Byzantium, but most Lords in western Europe wouldn't have had much of an alternative. Feudalism almost inevitably rises from chaos (from the bottom), the same can be seen in Japan. And in cases like Charlemagne, promoting feudalism (from top-down) was simply the most effective way of ensuring a regions loyalty. Same applies to the Parthians, for example.
It's simply one of the best, easy to implement systems for raising a (relatively) loyal fighting force.

[Watchman]

A heavy cavalry army, anyway. If you're not specifically looking for armoured men atop big warhorses, there are frankly better ways to arrange the matters.
That said, I'm also under a quite strong impression that the "Eastern" version of the feudal system, as practised by for example the Parthians and Sassanids, usually managed to preserve some degree of central control over the feudal aristocracy - at least compared to the primus inter pares norm of post-Migrations Europe, where the barons were more than likely to ignore their supposed superiors if they felt like it and thought they'd get away with it. Although this might also have something to do with the former being more of a deliberate construction and the latter an ad hoc outgrowth of warlord near-anarchy...

[The Wizard]

If anything, the Ottomans prized the City, considering its conquest to be something of a key to their Imperial destiny so to speak.

What did Mehmed II say on the matter? Ah, yes: "The seat of the Roman empire is in Constantinople. He who establishes himself there, is emperor of the whole world." :yes:

And indeed, Mehmed il-Fatih did style himself emperor of Rome. One can argue that the Ottoman empire in fact represents a continuation of the Byzantine empire -- an attempt to usurp its rights to domination of the entire Mediterranean basin as Dushan tried before them.


That said, I'm also under a quite strong impression that the "Eastern" version of the feudal system, as practised by for example the Parthians and Sassanids, usually managed to preserve some degree of central control over the feudal aristocracy - at least compared to the primus inter pares norm of post-Migrations Europe, where the barons were more than likely to ignore their supposed superiors if they felt like it and thought they'd get away with it. Although this might also have something to do with the former being more of a deliberate construction and the latter an ad hoc outgrowth of warlord near-anarchy...

Indeed, although it must be said that, in Parthian and Sassanian Iran, the game of feudal intrigue was played out between the King of Kings and his Great Houses. Whenever the king was weak and his court was weak, the Houses took to domination and Iran grew weak. Often, these periods were those of the least threat to Rome, and the most humiliation recieved from Roman armies.

Khusrau Anushirvan attempted to change this by seeking closer ties with the smaller, local nobles and Houses of Iran. He also strengthened his bureaucracy, all to present the Great Houses with a two-front threat to keep them perenially busy. In the end, it took a big fat two decades of war to bring the dynasty crashing down under the pressure of its lost manpower base -- always the underdog to its Romano-Byzantine counterpart -- and that of nigh on volcanic Muslim expansion.

[The Stranger]

Well, excessive feudalism is what ruined Poland (how can you survive where a single corrupt, foreign-bribed bastard can paralyze the entire nation with his "liberum veto"; and what if that bastard is interested in subjugating the very much free and productive masses into his personal serfs?), weakened Byzantium (while the loss of Anatolia is the most devastating factor involving the Empire's manpower crisis at the eve of the Comnenian dynasty and beyond, the theme system formerly in place could've easily maintained in the Balkans a decent manpower base for its wars. The kind of manpower base that don't bankrupt the country like excessive reliance on mercenaries would; and guess who pretty much were against the themata idea from the beginning? The magnates -- nobles. If anything, the Bulgar Slayer's empire was carved from the free peasantry that fought in Byzantine armies), and devastated Bohemia, among others.

Besides, how much stronger France became when it transformed from a collection of feuding, unruly nobles into a centralized state? And why was England -- which was quite poor compare to her great neighbor across the sea; population, economic, or otherwise -- so successful as a nation? Also, was Rome in its heyday feudal, with decentralized power based on land and serfs distributed to nobles and all that?

There were alternatives that were more effective than Feudalism even during the ages where communication wasn't as smooth as today and a state's "natural limit" (that was the phenomenon with Rome and the Ottomans and many others) was much smaller than what the British Empire was allowed to be.

you're proving my point. the examples you give (roman and ottoman empire) are the icons of good communications back in the old days... i doubt any country in medieval europe (ban maybe byzantine empire) that had communications as good as they...

[AntiochusIII]

you're proving my point. the examples you give (roman and ottoman empire) are the icons of good communications back in the old days... i doubt any country in medieval europe (ban maybe byzantine empire) that had communications as good as they...Poland is my prime example, in fact.

It wasn't the country with the most roads in the world -- never ruled by Rome, for instance. Admittedly, it was also mostly plains...

[Watchman]

Cavalry country, mostly, and more or less opens right out to the vastness of the Great Eurasian Steppe and its once ever-troublesome nomads in the east. Thus the need for feudal heavy cavalry for mobile regional defense, and the warrior aristocracy's strong position to negotiate its privileges from.

[The Stranger]

You get me all wrong, I'm not saying feudalism is a good thing, far from that... but most countries didnt have a better solution... Im not an expert in polish history... but i thought poland elected their leader... which resulted in various civil wars when a weak or unliked leader was elected...

[The Stranger]

did the fall have major/great influence on the progress of the renaissance

[Cangrande]

but most countries didnt have a better solution...

One that did springs to mind, Venice.

[The Stranger]

now how big was venice in medieval times... not that big... and they had quite good comunications... theyre ships were great... and they didnt get too big untill late medieval times... by then communications was getting better and the fuedal systems were being replace by absolute monarchies

[Innocentius]

but most countries didnt have a better solution...

Not a country, but Machiavelli was onto something there:clown:

[Watchman]

For the sort of land warfare Venice had to worry about for most of its history the tough commoner militia plus handfuls of feudal cavalry from affiliated nearby rural areas was quite sufficient. Plus they were so darn rich they could usually get mercenaries to fill any gaps.

This, however, was an approach only possible for prosperous urban centres and regions. The control and defense of large rural areas, especially if they are relatively unobstructed geographically (read as "suited for cavalry warfare") required, in absence of highly developed state adminstrations, economies and something akin to standing armies, a rather "distributed" approach - in other words, feudalism. You give some hot shot the responsibility to defend a given area which also pays for the troops and fortifications required for the job, so local threats and incursions can be promptly responded to. If the local forces are insufficient they pull into the fortresses to buy time and harass the enemy while more troops are called up and vectored in to deal with the problem.

Or that was the theory anyway. The damn local bigwigs had an unfortunate and universal tendency to tend to start going their own way with their private armies and fortresses sooner or later, but for a long time some variation of the basic scheme was usually required to look after large rural areas.


but i thought poland elected their leader... which resulted in various civil wars when a weak or unliked leader was elected...Wasn't the only one eother. But the important part was that the nobility managed to corner the decision-making power and as usual were chiefly interested in enlarging and maintaining their own privileges, leaving the kings rather impotent and probably usually rather frustrated. Ergo, they by and large did as they felt like and blocked any law or initiative that even looked like encroaching on their rights - which just happened to include around everything that would have been required to "update" the country to the standards that allowed a fair chance of getting somewhere in Early Modern Europe.

IIRC serfdom wasn't abolished in Poland before something like early or middle 1800s either. Go figure.

[The Wizard]

IIRC serfdom wasn't abolished in Poland before something like early or middle 1800s either. Go figure.

Actually, serfdom was actually reintroduced in Poland as its strength first slumped, then gave way entirely under the pressure of the liberum veto and foreign bribes (IIRC this happened after the death of Jan Sobieski). Also, I don't think the Russians of all powers were interested in abolishing Polish serfdom if they didn't even want to do that with their own subjects.

In fact, it was not the system native to Poland that eventually did the Golden Liberty in, but the fact that within this Golden Liberty of theirs, several fashionistas with red boots -- the magnates -- decided that they deserved a bigger piece of the pie than the rest of the szlachta (the Polish nobility) simply because they happened to have a better sense of fashion (how much of this historical reasoning is true I leave to thee ~D).

Suffice to say, as the power of the lesser nobles gave away before that of the big pimps, one saw Poland stagger and totter as the situation betrayed frightening similarity with that of the Holy Roman Empire, what with the major playas drawing all the power to them, leaving the King and the minor hustlers down and out of the game. A classical case, which, now that I think of it, is markedly similar to the spells of weakness that assailed the Parthians and Sassanians.

[Watchman]

Also, I don't think the Russians of all powers were interested in abolishing Polish serfdom if they didn't even want to do that with their own subjects.You've heard of Alex the Second, the "Liberator Czar" right...? 1861 goes under "mid-1800s" in my scale.

Anyway, by what I know of it the way land ownership developed in Poland follows rather closely the international pattern of a small core of very rich landlords expanding their holdings. It was a fairly universal trend during the 1500s around the Mediterranean for example, and as such a perfectly logical if not outright proto-capitalistic developement - it only makes sense to use the riches drawn from your estates to enlarge them for further profit, prestige and power right ?

...when you think about it, for a long time that was the pattern states grew up with too...

[The Stranger]

please lets return to the byzantium question :P

did the fall have major/great influence on the progress of the renaissance?

[Marquis of Roland]

I don't think "buffer" is an accurate description of the Byzantine Empire. The Catholics hated the byz more than they did the muslims.

[Watchman]

did the fall have major/great influence on the progress of the renaissance?Not all that likely, given that the Renaissance is usually counted as having begun already during the 1300s in Italy. Lots of money floating around and busy links everywhere around the Med might of had something to do with it.

[Kralizec]

1400 is the date I've read most often in relation to Italia, 1500 for the rest of Europe.

Prior to their fall, the Byzantines themselves had begun to interest themselves in antiquity- probably in no small part because they knew their city would come to its end quickly enough. Lot's of scholars fled towards Italian cities, and provided an influx (the size of the impact being debatable) for the renaissance.

[Watchman]

Late 1300s is the period I've most often seen quoted for northern Italy. The conditions - a combination of wealth, high degree of urbanization, vast international connections, plus enough non-crippling tension and turmoil to keep things lively - were already present by then. Access to Classical works via the progressing Reconquista of the Iberian peninsula didn't hurt any.

Influx of "Greek" scholars from the crumbling Byzantine Empire obviously played a part, but I wouldn't claim them to be a decisive factor. It's not like the omnipresent Italian merchants wouldn't have had access to a large part of their corpus of knowledge earlier anyway, on the side of what they gleaned off the Muslims on the side of haggling over spices and silks.

[The Wizard]

When Constantinople was eclipsed by Mystra (near the ruins of Sparta) as a cultural center, there was a certain revival of the interest in the ancient age amongst the Byzantines there. Most scholars, however, remained conservative and more interested in religion and the Church than anything else, as befit a proper Byzantine.

Yet there was one brave man who didn't give a whit about all this: George Gemistos Plethon. Arguably a true genius, he not only enjoyed a wide-ranging Byzantine education, but also had the gall to go to the Ottoman Sultan's court and have a look at the collected knowledge of Islam. There are anecdotes of the fury of the scholars in Constantinople and Mystra as Plethon popped up out of nowhere speaking Aristotelian and Platonic lingo they'd never heard before.

Plethon even wrote a treatise on how the Byzantines could revive themselves, both as a culture as well as a power: a close-knit, strictly regulated society in which land was held in common and which was defended by its own citizens, instead of mercenaries or a warrior aristocracy -- entirely in the spirit of Plato long before him, Plethon had become a fanboy of Sparta. After seeing it, a friend of his is rumored to have burned it in shock.

Now, Plethon accompanied one of the emperors of Byzantium on a trip of diplomatic begging, as Byzantine emperors had grown accustomed to doing with the West ever since they'd lost their clout out in the international 'hood. This particular journey took him accross Italy, where he delighted the local fat cats and big wigs -- amongst them the Medicis -- with his extensive knowledge of the classical (schooled in both Byzantine as well as Islamic knowledge of it, after all) and his unique ideas. I do believe that the Italians call him their Father of the Renaissance.

[AntiochusIII]

Well, Frederick ("Federico") II of the Hohenstaufen fame did turn Sicily -- or, more precisely, his court -- into a center of learning as early as the 13th century. The language that grew out of what the Sicilian linguists tinkered with was what Dante used to write his epic Comedy, somewhere at the start of the 14th. Pretty early if you ask me.

Of course, I'm not arguing that Dante is Renaissance -- that's rather ridiculous -- but it's clear that the roots are deep and the soil is rich.

It's also easy to accept once you realize that the Constantinople barrier is only when it comes to geographic movements of armies and empires, not merchant ships in the Mediterranean. Trade routes between Venice and Alexandria (and beyond) had flourished since Venice itself flourished and continued to do so well into the Renaissance era and beyond. And trade routes, especially one as busy as in this particular case, are also routes for the exchange of ideas, books, and the arts.

Did the Italian Renaissance benefit from the influx of Byzantine emigrants? Absolutely. Ancient texts, scholarly opinions, the know-how, the knowledge, the artistic styles ("Byzantine" styles influenced Italy alright); all of which contributed and perhaps accelerated the process. Is it really dependent on the fall of Constantinople, 1453? Not really. There's a lot of reasons to move away from the former boundaries of the Empire for some better place long before the City finally fell. And filthy rich Italy, with its appetite for scholars and artists seeking jobs and its close proximity, is probably the first choice of many, if not most. And the influx of the Greeks after the Fall of Constantinople, while naturally a sudden increase, happened while the Renaissance had already been well under way.

I'd go on to ramble on how Italy was in many ways perfect for something like the Renaissance to happen but that's a little off topic.

[Watchman]

Well, Frederick ("Federico") II of the Hohenstaufen fame did turn Sicily -- or, more precisely, his court -- into a center of learning as early as the 13th century. The language that grew out of what the Sicilian linguists tinkered with was what Dante used to write his epic Comedy, somewhere at the start of the 14th. Pretty early if you ask me.By what I've read of it Sicily was also one of those "contact regions" where the three Abrahamic faiths long coexisted reasonably harmoniously. And the Jews in particular - since they were constantly being expelled from one place and allowed to settle down somewhere else, and having a common "truth-language" and identity to help contact-building - were the transporters of ideas par excellence.

Sitting smack in the middle of the Med, with around every single major sea-lane going right by, would also have made the island easily accessible to all sorts of ideas and influences.

[The Wizard]

Well, Frederick ("Federico") II of the Hohenstaufen fame did turn Sicily -- or, more precisely, his court -- into a center of learning as early as the 13th century. The language that grew out of what the Sicilian linguists tinkered with was what Dante used to write his epic Comedy, somewhere at the start of the 14th. Pretty early if you ask me.

He was building upon the foundations laid by his grandpapa, Roger II de Hauteville, King of Sicily. Already his court was extremely cosmopolitan, with influences from the "Frankish", Islamic and Byzantine worlds all. In fact, the word admiral was begotten in Western languages through Sicily, via the title Roger II instituted for the commander of his (sizeable) fleets: emir of the seas.

But yes, you're correct in saying that the Renaissance was not something that just dropped out of the sky one day. It was a movement of gradually increasing and cumulative speed and intensity.

[Orb]

To the Europe bashing earlier in the thread, remember that during the First crusade, the Christians actually allied with and received help from some muslims. Similarly, the muslim invasion of Spain began when a weak Christian faction wanted muslim support to regain power.

Europe wouldn't have 'automatically' invaded the Muslims, and it's fairly ridiculous to say it would have.

[AntiochusIII]

Sitting smack in the middle of the Med, with around every single major sea-lane going right by, would also have made the island easily accessible to all sorts of ideas and influences.Indeed, which reinforces the point that the Renaissance is far from reliant on Greek -- Byzantine -- input that has been something of a canon of popular history. Especially since Italy is essentially geographically situated at the heart of a whole lot of activities going on in the Mediterranean. Though naturally there are lots and lots of factors out there that contribute to the Renaissance being what it is -- after all, the dramatic changes of the era involve just about every aspect of life; it couldn't possibly be influenced from just one place -- that one could and probably many had written whole books on it. From the geography to the city-states political structure to strokes of genius and chances of history. One simply can't just simplify it to "Byzantium declined; so they moved to Italy."

I guess the mystique of Rome for us enthusiasts hold pretty strong. And you can blame Gibbon and his disproportionate influence on popular understanding of history for everything else under the sun.

He was building upon the foundations laid by his grandpapa, Roger II de Hauteville, King of Sicily. Already his court was extremely cosmopolitan, with influences from the "Frankish", Islamic and Byzantine worlds all. In fact, the word admiral was begotten in Western languages through Sicily, via the title Roger II instituted for the commander of his (sizeable) fleets: emir of the seas.I didn't know the Hohenstaufen Emperor is related to ol' de Hauteville! I bow to your superior knowledge. :bow:

[The Stranger]

To the Europe bashing earlier in the thread, remember that during the First crusade, the Christians actually allied with and received help from some muslims. Similarly, the muslim invasion of Spain began when a weak Christian faction wanted muslim support to regain power.

Europe wouldn't have 'automatically' invaded the Muslims, and it's fairly ridiculous to say it would have.

??? i havent seen anybody say that... noboday was saying europe would invade the muslims... the otherway around was said a few times...

[Watchman]

The point of that whole post - beyond what vaguely appears to be some kind of lukewarm apologism - evades my scrutiny.

[AntiochusIII]

AntiochusIII was being stupid :(

[edited, of course]

[Watchman]

Err... you know, I was talking about the post by Orb which The Stranger quoted in the previous post. Surely it would have been superfluous for me to quote it as well ?

[AntiochusIII]

Err... you know, I was talking about the post by Orb which The Stranger quoted in the previous post. Surely it would have been superfluous for me to quote it as well ?Wow, and I just acted totally stupid.

:gah2:

My apologies for misunderstanding your intention.

[Watchman]

"Mr. Christian, punish this man."
:whip:

'S all cool, mon. Jah sez: mo' herb. :hippie:

[The Stranger]

I'm totally at a loss now...

[AntiochusIII]

I'm totally at a loss now...To explain, Watchman's remark, that he doesn't really get the point of the post you quoted, was misinterpreted (read: overreacted) by me to be pointed at me, who proceeded to defend myself haphazardly, until he corrected me by explaining that he didn't meant me after all. :balloon2:

:sweatdrop:

Anyway, back to topic.

[The Stranger]

let's play

[IronMonkey]

( I realize I'm late on this but I wanted to add my two cents for drill if nothing else)

On the Name Byzantium: Byzantium is the Latin form of Byzantion (Greek name of the city better known as Constantinople (the city of Constantine) and after 1453 known as Istanbul (from the Greek word Istanbul/ meaning to the city or in the city).

Byzantion is the original name of the city founded in 667 BCE. by Greeks from Megara, their Kings name was Byzas and the city was named after him.

The Romans captured the city in 196 CE, in 330 CE Emperor Constantine renamed the city Nova Roma (New Rome). After Constantine's death the city was renamed Constantinople to Honor the emperor.

In 1453 the Ottoman Turks captured the city and named it Istanbul which is believed to be a Turkic version of the Greek word Istanobli (sp?) meaning (in)the city.

The name Byzantium or Byzantine Empire in referring to the Eastern Roman Empire was popularized by scholars during the 19th century when writing about the empire of Greek speaking peoples of the Bosporus and Western Anatolia region with its capital at Constantinople.

Referring to the eastern Roman Empire as The Byzantium Empire is deemed acceptable by most contemporary scholars but is perhaps technically not correct since the Medieval Inhabitants of the city thought of themselves as
The Roman Empire. In the west it was known as The Empire of the Greeks since the culture was dominated by Greek influences including language. To the Turks it was known simply as Rum.

Now to the Main Topic: "Influence of the Byzantine Empire on European history".

Corpus Juris Civilis
The single greatest contribution to European History would have to be the Corpus Juris Civilis (created by Justinian I 525-565) also known as the Justinian Code. This immense undertaking was the creation of a code of Roman law drawing on ideas of rationality, coherence, equity and Imperial power.

The Justinian code was not being used in Europe until the later part of the
11th century CE. Were it became the basis of laws (replacing Germanic Folk Laws and the like) in all regions excluding England. Most scholars agree that the adaptation of the Justinian Code stood as a vehicle of justification for the absolutism of the later middle ages and early modern history. What can't be debated is the overall effect on the social/political framework of the era.

The Great Schism
A split in Christian ideology and other issues evolved between the ERE and the Papacy in Rome centered on disputes ranging from control of the Christan church to the very nature of the Trinity. Attempts were periodically made at reconciliation but the rift exists to this day.

Up until the 6-7th centuries CE. Europe looked to the Greeks in Constantinople for guidance. After this time Europe turned away and drew on its own resources mainly Frankish Kings and the Papacy, leading to the eventual influence of the Throne of St. Peter and the power of European Monarchs independent of Eastern Roman Influence.

The Greeks in Constantinople surely looked down their noses on the Barbarians of the west and the Kings of Latin Europe felt the Emperors in the east were resting on the shoulders of by gone glories.

Most of the Intellectual contributions (such as the Aristotelian corpus )from the ancient Greek world came from Arabic translations in Sicily and Spain (up until the last quarter of the 12th century) not the original Greek, by the cooperation of Christan, Jewish and Arabic scholars.

The Influence of the ERE on Medieval Europe was basically limited to the adaptation of the Justinian code and the Great Schism between The Greek Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic Church. BY the end of the early medieval period the ERE was in decline and seemed only capable of defending the status quo in its capital, her borders were being pushed on from all directions and only skillful political maneuvering kept the empire in tact until it took its last gasp in 1453 CE. The effect of the Roman-Greek culture on Europe was immense but the influence of the ERE specifically seems of little impact in the great scheme of things.

In contrast with the stagnation and decay of the ERE, Europe's star was on the rise and began the rise to domination of much of the world.

Its also worth mentioning that the ERE Emperor Alexius sending letters to the Pope asking him to declare holy war against the peoples of Islam. Without his actions the crusades may have never happened. Of course Alexius had no idea what the long term ramifications of unleashing the trained killers of Europe on Asia Minor would do. This action definitely influenced the history of Europe.