Byzantium outlived Western Rome by about 1000 years, but they always have the bad rap of being decadent and militarily weak. That really makes no sense at all.

At my URL I have my little squib [i added the link -r] about the Caucasian Albanians, in roughly present-day Azerbaijan before about 1000 AD. It's a glimpse of a world in which everything is in the wrong pigeonhole -- the Romans are Greeks, the Khazars are still pagan, the Persians are not Muslim, the trinitarians are heretics, and so on.



Edited By Siteowner

Excellent, Razib. We academics can only dream of universities where humanities and social science departments are populated with people like this.


Henry

henry, are you joking or are you serious?

After having read the Q&A, I would place my money on Henry being serious ;)

Excellent Q & A's. I must read more about Byzantium.

On a point of detail, I think the main transmission of Greek manuscripts, etc, from Byzantium to Italy, occurred in the first half of the 15th century, i.e. *before* the fall of Constantinople. There were two factors involved: (a) the rise of the Italian humanists, who were keen to get their hands on any 'new' ancient texts, and (b) a lot of Byzantine diplomats and churchmen were in Italy for negotiations about possible reunion of the Eastern and Western churches. The fall of Constantinople put an end to this.

plethon is a name unknown to most educated americans, and i think that is a shame....

Sorry, quite serious. Treadgold is a tremendous scholar, he has interesting and novel ideas, and he is not whining about anything.

Henry

Trivia: The battle of Hastings was preceded by the battle of Stamford Bridge, where the Anglo-Saxon King Harold defeated the Norwegian King Harald (Hardrada).

During a period of exile, Hardrada had spent many years in Constantinople and became an important figure in the Royal Guard -- he appears in Greek chronicles. The Greek Empire's Royal Guard was Anglo-Saxon and Norse right up to the end, and during the Fourth Crusade they fought against the Crusaders.

We tend to project current relationships on the past, but during a long early period Sweden was as much Eastern as Western. The corridor between the Baltic and the Black Seas (especially the Dnieper) plays a bigger rol in history than very many people know.

i believe the royal dynasties of germany, france and england were all tied to the rurikids of kievan rus in the 11th century. i.e., anne of kiev + henry i capet of france. and then there was theophanu, the byzantine princess who married the holy roman emperor in the 10th century.

John,

I don't agree with your twin ascertions that, the Greeks were Roman and the Greek Empire.

I think the Eastern Roman Empire, later known as the Byzantine Empire, after the fall of the Western Roman OdEmpire to the Barbarians - be they VisiGoths, OstroGoths, Gaels, Vandals (Wendish Slavs), Huns - was Greek speaking, but Roman culturally. Greeks had long been assimilated and subsumed into the Roman ediface by the time of Byzantium. They were the inheritors of all Roman high culture, and preserved it long enough to be able to reintroduce it back into the area of the former Western Roman Empire. So in this sense Roman culture never died, and still lives on in us.

Greeks had long been assimilated and subsumed into the Roman ediface by the time of Byzantium. They were the inheritors of all Roman high culture, and preserved it long enough to be able to reintroduce it back into the area of the former Western Roman Empire.

this pedantic, but, no.

1) greeks were integral parts of roman civilization, and greek culture in general ran richly through roman culture just as anglo-saxon culture undergirds ours (amerikans that is). but, as a point of fact my reading suggests that it took 'till the 4th century for the greek polis elites to give up on their native political structures and pecking orders within the pax romana and begin filtering into the latin hierarchy. this can be seen by the fact that there weren't many greek speaking origin emperors before justinian (who was the 'last roman,' i.e., raised speaking latin in macedonia). i believe zeno and anastasius, and that's all i can name off the top of my head.

2) roman high culture was in large part greek high culture. the philosophers of the roman empire were greek! the philosophers of the christian religion were greek! the latins excelled in rhetoric, law and government (relatively). st. augustine was no great philosopher, but he was a good rhetorician. origen was a great philosopher, but he was too busy cutting his balls off to spin world girding polemics.

3) my understanding is that though the greekness of byzantium (byzantium as we know it) began with the reign of justinian, it was completed during the reign of heraclius. it was during his time that administrative units were reorganized under themes, and the emperor was now also a basileos, a greek term.

4) but in specific military forms (phrases) and in their own self-image, yes, they were romans.

Latin was used as an official language for some time, but I think that it died out.

Latin was used as an official language for some time, but I think that it died out.

at different times in different places. i.e., used longer in the military than in the civil service.

Re: Question 1 -- do scholars consider this "brain drain" of Greeks to Italy one factor among many for why modern Italy still shines in the arts & sciences, whereas modern Greece struggles? Not just the scholars leaving, but perhaps other above-avg IQ Byzantines migrating (merchants, etc.)?

I tried some googling but didn't come up w/ much, and I don't have access to any journals. It's something that puzzles everyone: why was Greece a no-show in the visual arts & sciences during the 20th Century? You can't really chalk it up to civil war, world war, dictatorships, backwardness, etc., since Italy suffered all those things and yet made a huge impression.

Curiously, many of the big names in Italian film -- an arsty film tradition -- are from the eastern half of Emilia-Romagna, whose city Ravenna used to be the capital of Byzantine Italy: Fellini (Rimini), Antonioni (Ferrara), Pasolini (Bologna), Bertolucci (Parma), Avati (Bologna).

Also, many of the big names in Italian fashion design are from the poor backward south: Versace (Reggio Calabria), Ennio Capasa (Puglia), Dolce of D&G (Sicily), Pucci (Naples), Ferragamo (Naples). The Futurist sculptor Boccioni was also from R-C. Partially a result of an ancient brain drain to Magna Graecia?

Again, Greek brain drain may be one reason among others for why these areas are well represented in the two visual art/design fields where Italy's had an impressive profile in 20th C. But I don't have quantitative data on Byzantine migration. I didn't see anything about modern Greece on Treadgold's publication list -- any idea what he thinks?

agnostic,

i doubt he's thought about these things. a few pts.

1) the southern half of italy was predominantly greek for much of the period between now and antiquity, the byzantines didn't lose their last italian possessions in sicily until after 1000.

2) modern day italoit greeks in southern italy are the relicts of this population, but i believe haplotype analysis suggests that southern greeks do show imprint of their hellenic origin.

3) selection and in situ evolutionary factors would likely be just as salient in terms of the dynamics are you implying as migration.

agnostic, another point on Greece's moden cultural achievements.

Most of Greece's modern population are Hellenised Slavs, Turkey retained more of the Greek genepool.

I have a question: I've just started reading Crossroads to Islam, by Yehuda Nevo, which offers a revisionist interpretation of the rise of Islam. I don't know yet what the book has to say about Islam and the Arabs, but they say that the Byzantines deliberately neglected and alienated the provinces that would be conquered by the Arabs, going so far as to encourage heresy there, in order that someone would take those provinces off their hands. To me this sounds outlandish. How does it sound to Byzantinists?

The Byzantines were clearly in many ways the inheritors of the Roman Empire, but I've always wondered if that statement doesn't obscure as much as it reveals. Like every other polity, it was a mixture of traditional and innovatory elements. It seems to me that as long as the "pure" Roman culture prevailed, Byzantium gradually declined and in many ways took much of the Mediterranean world down with it (the impact of Justinian on Italy and North Africa was catastrophic); when Byzantium had to reinvent itself after the Moslem conquests as an essentially 'modern' (i.e. feudal) state, it got a new lease on life.

Also, regarding the impact of monophysitism and other heretical elements in the Moslem conquests, I think the good professor is being a bit too narrow in his interpretation. The monophysites may have done nothing to encourage conquest, but the very existence of all the heretical movements in the eastern Mediterranean world has to suggest local restiveness under the highly extractive (i.e., pure-D Roman) Byzantine rule. Theologians, after all, make up far less than 1% of any population--what was encouraging everyone else to make their own lives complicated by supporting a heresy?

Most of Greece's modern population are Hellenised Slavs, Turkey retained more of the Greek genepool.

no. this doesn't seem to be true from the gene frequencies i've seen (in fact, it seems on the southern margines peoples like the serbs and bulgarians might be as much indigenes who were slavicized than slavs who swamped the region demographically). remember that the byzantines resettled much of greece proper with settlers from greek anatolia when they reconquered the hinterlands from the skalveni after 1000. for those outside the know, after about 600 the byzantines basically abandoned the balkans to various barbarian groups and simply kept control of a few strongholds like thessalonika, constantinople and its hinterlands as well as the peloponnese. the foci of byzantine power was in anatolia, especially the western half. after 1000 the byzantines reconquered much of the balkans, re-absorbing bulgaria, macedonia and illyria. after 1056 they lost most of the antolian hinterlands, so the byzantine center of gravity after this point was in the balkans, as well as northwestern anatolia. as for the turks, they obviously share a lot with the greeks proper genetically, though one must remember that they were probably always affinal to the peoples of greece. the asiatic genetic load is probably no greater than 20% and no lower than 5%, and probably closer to 10%.

I don't know yet what the book has to say about Islam and the Arabs, but they say that the Byzantines deliberately neglected and alienated the provinces that would be conquered by the Arabs, going so far as to encourage heresy there, in order that someone would take those provinces off their hands. To me this sounds outlandish. How does it sound to Byzantinists?

i'm not a byzantinist, but i've read a lot, and this sounds nuts. egypt was the granary of the empire to some extent (or, more probably by the end, it provided the surplus which could buffer the variations from the anatolian harvests). while heresy was common around antioch, jerusalem and its environs were always solidly chalcedonian.

the impact of Justinian on Italy and North Africa was catastrophic

well, but it wasn't justinian, it was the fact that italy already had vital and organized polity in the form of the ostrogoths. the problem was that the italians were crushed between the two powers. in contrast, the 'conquest' of southern andalusia was relatively easy because they simply got the garrison in cartagena to switch sides. and i don't think the conquest was devestating for north africa, my impression is it was pretty easy since the local elites didn't much like the arian vandals in the first place. north africa didn't fall until the late 7th century, it was not part of the initial wave of muslim conquests like egypt or persia, and it was the base from which heraclius launched his bid for the purple in the early 7th century. in short-i don't think there was anything fundamental about the early byzantines that was enverating or destructive, the conditions in italy were sui generis, as a competent ostrogothic element existed to challenge byzantine conquests, result in a net loss for the italians caught in the middle.

when Byzantium had to reinvent itself after the Moslem conquests as an essentially 'modern' (i.e. feudal) state, it got a new lease on life.

i think we need to be careful about the term 'feudal.' byzantines never had feudalism as in the west, it was technically a unitary state, and elite families lived at the pleasure of the emperor to a far greater extent than powerful dukes and lords in the west did in relation to a putative king. also, the reorganization of byzantium along post-roman model occurred in stages. the roman army started to shift from infantry to mobile calvalry as early as the 4th century. the shift was complete by the early 7th century during the persian wars, as heraclius instituted the organizational unit of themes and the byzantine cataphracts were basically mirror images of the heavy persian mounted warriors. the soldiers who lived on the anatolian frontier were to some extent like knights, they received land in return for the promise that they could be depended upon when the emperor needed to mobilize forces, but, my understanding is that there was a direct loyalty to the emperor rather than an overwhelming mediating by local nobles, which was more the feudal model. finally, the second rise of byzantine in the 9th century coincides pretty well with the decline of the arab caliphate. between 650-850 byzantine was very much on the defensive, and there were 2 sieges of constantinople. by 1000 the byzantines had reconquered the southern and eastern parts of anatolia, and extended hegemony over muslim emirates in syria and northern iraq. rather than purely a reorganization of byzantine society i think it seems plausible that the decline in muslim force mobilization because of faction resulted in the relative strength of the byzantines. with the muslim threat abating, this was the period when the byzantines also reconquered southeastern europe, resulting in even greater resources.

Theologians, after all, make up far less than 1% of any population--what was encouraging everyone else to make their own lives complicated by supporting a heresy?

i think warren's response was in reaction to perception that theological faction was causative in relation to the conquest of the levant and egypt. this is a common contention. the reality is that it was probably an outgrowth of an intersection of factors, including the large base of theological inclined scholars in the eastern empire. there is an idea that monosophytism, for example, was connected to ethno-national resentment against greek chalcedonianism, in some circles. the problem with this contention is that many of the prominent monophysite thinkers were greeks from antioch or alexandria! aramaic speaking palestine was firmly chalcedonian. i suspect that is that a political power whose center of gravity was to the north and west simply would always have had difficulties in fending off attacks from the arabian desert directed to the levant and egypt. it is often forgotten that egypt and the levant were conquered by persia in the early 7th century. it is also forgotten than the city of palymra under the queen zenobia was the center of a mini-empire which absorbed much of the roman east for a time in the 3rd century. the conquest might have had much more to do with fixed geopolitical constraints than historically contingent theology. the monophysites of armenia did not fold to the arabs, and in fact, they supplied the backbone of the army and many emperors for much of the early & middle period of byzantium.

Many thanks to Razib and Prof. Treadgold for the Q&A session. Regarding Byzantine influence on Italian Renaissance, do we have to assume it was due primarily to the fall of Constantinople and the exodus of Greek scholars given that Venice had kept close contact with the Empire for centuries, that theological debates between Romans and Greeks broke out from time to time, and that some important works of Greek theologians, such as the Areopagitic texts, had been long known in the West?

As an aside, Razib -- do I understand correctly that Hardrada's wife (or one of them -- was he baptized?) was a daughter of Yaroslav and a sister of Anne of Kiev?

It is interesting that the Eastern-born heresies (Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism) were Christological in nature, while Western-born heresies (Donatism, Pelagianism) centered around man.

Many thanks to Razib and Prof. Treadgold for the Q&A session. Regarding Byzantine influence on Italian Renaissance, do we have to assume it was due primarily to the fall of Constantinople and the exodus of Greek scholars given that Venice had kept close contact with the Empire for centuries, that theological debates between Romans and Greeks broke out from time to time, and that some important works of Greek theologians, such as the Areopagitic texts, had been long known in the West?

i apologize for giving the impression that i was due primarily to the fall. rather, that was the coup de grace.

re: harald, i don't know about his wife, but i assumed he was born a christian. but if not, he was obviously baptized-norway during christian during his lifetime and any plausible king had to be of that faith.

Razib, I understand that both Russian and Scandinavian sources confirm that Yaroslav married off his eldest daughter, Elizaveta/Elisabeth/Ellisif, to Harald Hardrada, some time in the 1040s, when Harald stayed in Kiev on his way from Constantinople to Norway.

James, even more than that: Augustinian (over)reaction to Pelagianism resurfaces during the Reformation, hence the pessimistic Reformed anthropology and cocks on church spires.

I'm late to the party (I just read about the post in Alexei's blog), but I wanted to offer my thanks for the interview -- Treadgold is one of my favorite historians (History of the Byzantine State and Society has a prominent place on my bookshelf), and it's a real treat to have his answers to these questions.

Thanks for posting this. This was one of the highlights of my day.

I'm glad that in an era of shrinking liberal arts budgets, people like Warren Treadgold are still out there - studying, theorizing, and publishing.