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.

[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.

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?

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.
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?

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.

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…

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

P.S.
Speculations are very sensitive and hard…

[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.
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?

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…

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

P.S.
Speculations are very sensitive and hard…

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.

[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.