Printable View
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.
I didn't know the Hohenstaufen Emperor is related to ol' de Hauteville! I bow to your superior knowledge. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
??? i havent seen anybody say that... noboday was saying europe would invade the muslims... the otherway around was said a few times...Quote:
Originally Posted by Orb
The point of that whole post - beyond what vaguely appears to be some kind of lukewarm apologism - evades my scrutiny.
AntiochusIII was being stupid :(
[edited, of course]
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
:gah2:
My apologies for misunderstanding your intention.
"Mr. Christian, punish this man."
:whip:
'S all cool, mon. Jah sez: mo' herb. :hippie:
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
:sweatdrop:
Anyway, back to topic.
let's play
( 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.