Byzantine history is so important to understand the modern world. It gives us the context for the orthodox/west divide; it gives us an example of a economic and intellectual superpower needing to live with the realities of barbarian neighbors, and being destroyed! It shows us great statecraft lasting a thousand years. It even shows us why generals and senior civil servants were eunuchs and how the next best thing was celibate people. This is the reason why catholic priests should be celibate and therefore the answer against nepotist corruption. We all know how nepotism is a serious issue in states everywhere in the world.
I became a fan of the Byzantines and seriously found team Roman Catholic to be a bunch of barbarians. I say team Roman Catholic because this small book[1] makes Byzantine history and trivia so humorous.
The religious parts of this I'm not sure I can agree with really.... I'm orthodox if it matters or seems relevant.
The catholic/orthodox differences are largely just because of a thousand years of divergence, of speaking different languages and having relatively little interchange, of each individually having movements in response to internal pressures and trends not experienced by the other. Not going to get into a filioque debate on HN but the initial theological dispute, however significant you find it to be, is not the source of the most tangible differences in the two branches today. They've just each been doing their own thing for a millennium and their unique histories took them to two different places during that time.
I don't see how byzantine eunuchs indicates anything about priest celibacy, especially since orthodox priests are usually married. Eunuchs and celibate priests still come from families, they experience love and duty and allegiance and enmity. To the extent a position is admirable people will want to be in it and to the extent it's powerful people will use that power to benefit the people and things they value. No restriction on who can hold an office will by itself address those factors. Byzantine eunuchs got up to plenty of corruption and betrayal in their own right.
I assume by "barbarians" you mean the ottoman turks, but we have to be careful in reading byzantine history not to absorb byzantine attitudes about their rivals. The ottomans were a long-lived, sophisticated, and nuanced entity in their own right. Even their precursors and other byzantine neighbors were not as simple or simply motivated as byzantine or byz-sympathetic sources would indicate.
lol calling ottomans sophisticated and nuanced tell me you are very misguided and are influence by Turkish propaganda. Nonetheless, the ottomans were nothing more than what Russia is today, barbarians, who is always looking to control other civilizations that were more sophisticated. What you see in turkey today is the aftermath of raping and pillaging of south east Europe.
One thing I learned recently is that 12th Century Fourth Crusade actually culminated in sacking Constantinople and establishment of the "Latin Empire", as the intended successor of the Byzantine Empire, which only existed for a brief time before it was recaptured by a rump state founded by exiled Byzantine aristocrats. Apparently (and understandably) this led to major deterioration in East-West Christian relations, and furthermore the resulting weakening of the Byzantine Empire is what might have enabled the Ottoman Empire to eventually conquer the Byzantine Empire in the 15th Century. The level of geopolitical chaos involved in such an event is unimaginable today. Even the messiest of 20th century wars seem downright orderly by comparison.
which was a reaction to the empire becoming near completely dominated by westerns both economically and (to a lesser degree) politically.
The last coup attempt/civil war (which was also a near permanent issue in the empire) before the massacre was between a French Princess ruling the empire as a regent for her underage son and her stepdaughter who was married to a Frankish nobleman from the Outremer (he was -the second highest ranking official in the empire and seemingly the heir apparent together with his wife). Had they succeeded the Empire would probably have had its first Latin Emperor (or at least co-Emperor) without even being directly conquered. Of course instead it ended with late emperor's cousin* murdering (he forced the 12 year old emperor to sign her mothers death warrant and before having him assassinated soon after).
mothers everyone and taking the throne for himself after he masterfully utilized the widespread public hatred towards the Latins amongst the general population..
*Andronikos Komnenos, who was in his middle 60s at the time and while being quite a terrible person had a very interesting life. Amongst other things (while in exile due all kinds of scheming) he seduced the former queen of Jerusalem (who happened to be his niece..) and up having two children with her after they ran away to the Turkish Sultanate of Damascus.
Eventually she was captured by the emperor who used her to lure Andronikos into Constantinople and then (unfortunately for the emperor's son) decided pardon him and exile him to a remote province instead of executing him.
AFAIK, an important reason eunuchs were preferred as generals and high officials is because a person who was castrated or had any other deformity could not be emperor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_mutilation_in_Byzant...) Exceptions did occur, e.g. Justinian II, but rare. It was also common practice to castrate sons of deposed emperors.
I do find it curious that not that much science came out of the Byzantine empire- Yes there was some, but (with my admittedly limited knowledge) it does seem to pale in comparison to the earlier stuff from Greece, Rome or even the Arab Caliphates with their scholars in Mathematics and Physics.
It seems like it was intellectual, but didn't have a proportional output of science or art that has stood the test of time.
Unfortunately for the Byzantine empire it spent most of its centuries in a population/territory/economic decline.
Back in 541-542 an outbreak killed about 40% of the city’s population.
But even during the period 1347-1453, a total of 61 plague reports were noted.
They only had the wealth, peace and population to focus on science to a very small degree. That they managed to stay afloat for as long as they did is a testament to the science the original Romans left them, and which we can thank the Byzantine's for preserving.
There is a strange trend of downplaying Byzantine heritage.. for instance modern Greek society seems to uphold the ancient Greeks much more, when in fact there are much closer ties to the Byzantine... a few hundred years ago it wouldn't have occurred to any Greek that they are connected to the ancients, and this trend has started with European Romantics.
I’m impressed by how you manage to disparage both the very real intellectual achievement of both the Byzantine empire and the Abbasid Caliphate in such a short comment. It’s even more amusing that you do that while comparing them to the Greek achievements without realising that the main reasons you know about them is due to translations made by intellectuals of the Byzantine empire and especially of the Caliphate.
Well, Christianity is a big reason. It was so successful for so long in part because it aggressively repressed any ideologies which could have threatened its hegemony. Since the Church considered the ’scientific’ domain to be part of its curriculum, new science was generally a threat.
They were the Roman Empire. The distinction we make today is mainly of two reasons:
- In the East side of the empire, Constantine, the Roman emperor who moved the capital to Byzantium ("New Rome") was half-Greek, and the Greek element in the East meant this half of the Roman Empire had a stronger Greek ethnic presence.
- In the West side, the local Roman elite along with newly arrived Germanic peoples (the Franks) were Christianized and established the Papal states, of whose the Pope was king, the Catholic church, and realms that continued from the Roman Empire that was split into West and East. To make their claim over the Roman Empire stronger, there were fabrications of legitimacy (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine ) and a lot of religious infighting with the East.
In short, in terms of a continuum of emperors the Eastern empire was essentially uninterrupted.
Even before the breakup of the empire, Romans were a bit obsessed with lineage and being descendants of powerful Romans. This cultural element carried over in the next two millennia by many people claiming the role of the Emperor of Romans, until the victories of Napoleon forced the rest of Europe to dissolve the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 to prevent Napoleon from claiming the title for himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Holy_Roman_...
That's because Byzantium was the eastern wing of the Roman Empire. Justinian I (the emperor in the wikipedia article) is remembered for being behind the last almost successful attempt to take Rome back from the hands of the barbarians and reunite the Empire's two heads.
The two heads in the Byzantine flags, that is. Byzantines called themselves "Roman", and everyone else in the area called them "Rum" (i.e. "Roman") because they were Romans.
Ah yes! This is an interesting tidbit I learned while listening to the excellent Fall of Civilizations podcast. The episode about Byzantium was so good. Paul and his team do such a good job on the audio and visuals.
Ironically, those outside of Byzantium (namely the Western Europeans) called them "the Greeks". The Byzantines in turn, called those Western Europeans "The Latins".
> It even shows us why generals and senior civil servants were eunuchs
That was the case for "only" around a third to a half of the empire's existence. But by the 1000 ADs appointing eunuchs to high posts fell out of fashion with emperors appointing family members or leading in the field directly (unlike in Justinians day when emperors spent almost their entire reign being cloistered in the palace).
Somewhere between the first and third crusades there was a non-insignificant chance of the empire becoming much more integrated with Latin/Catholic west. Later Komnenian emperors started adopting Western customs, had fairly good relations with most Crusader and Western States and were attempting to reunite the both churches officially.
Of course this process culminated when a French princess became an effective ruler of the empire as a regent for her underage son, she surrounded herself with Latins and parceled off pretty much everything she could off to Italian Merchants. This was met with an extremely violent backlash culminating in her and her son being murdered and a literal genocide (or at least a massive pogrom) of all the westerns living in Constantinople (10-20% of all the people living in the city). And the split was made permanent by the even more violent sack during the 4th crusade by the westerners.
Carrying that logic further, then, would it be better if public servants had no friends? If everyone anywhere but the lowest rung of the corporate ladder (from which one does not typically make hiring decisions) also had no family? For only the least (conventionally) successful to reproduce seems problematic.
Or rather, "carrying it to an extreme". But we don't have to carry it that far. Eliminating inherited positions is a huge and sufficient improvement. If you go all the way to "no family or friends at all", yeah, I'd agree the problematic aspects might outweigh the benefits.
I could never get into that podcast even though I have a strong interest and want to delve into the empire's history. In being disappointed by History of Rome's "sequel" I doubt I'm alone. Though I will check out this specific episode since I'm intrigued by this book; thanks for the heads-up.
They're more likely to choose their successors based on merit than familial ties for a start. That's really enough, but they may also have less need to enrich themselves as they don't need to plan for inheritance.
I'm curious, is there a list somewhere of these world-changing industrial espionage incidents? Here's two more I remember off the top of my head. Not sure why the top results are the Smithsonian Magazine but here are some links:
> The Brazilian monopoly suffered a fatal blow in 1876. In that year the English explorer Sir Henry Wickham (1800–67) gathered about 70,000 seeds from wild rubber trees in the forest close to the city of Santarem, in the state of Para. Wickham smuggled the seeds out of Brazil and took them to Kew Gardens, London, where they were sown. Many of them germinated, and 3,000 seedlings were sent from London to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). In 1877, 22 rubber plants were sent from Ceylon to the Singapore Botanic Gardens. The trees were growing there when in 1888 Sir Henry Nicholas Ridley (1855–1956) arrived as the gardens' first scientific director. Ridley spent years studying the trees, and in 1895 he discovered a technique for tapping the latex without seriously harming the tree. That made it practicable to cultivate the trees commercially. In 1890 Ridley exhibited the first cultivated rubber trees, and in 1896 the first rubber plantations were established in Malaysia. Most of the trees were grown from Ridley's seeds. Growers went on to produce hardier, disease-resistant varieties, and large rubber plantations were developed in Ceylon and Singapore as well as Malaysia.
This similar to Chinas stand on IP: copying is ok so long it doesn't happen to our IP. But this is how small economies can grow quickly, by ignoring IP. So nearly every western nation had a period of ignoring copyright and/or IP.
>“Foreigners seemed to prefer having a mixture of Prussian blue and gypsum with their tea, to make it look uniform and pretty, and as these ingredients were cheap enough, the Chinese [have] no objection to [supplying] them as such teas always fetch . . . a higher price!”
This quote and the preceding paragraph about the distrust of the Chinese tea manufacturers are quite something. I hadn't considered the "made in China" stereotype for quality had been around for centuries.
Historically (before ~1800 let's say) China was known for its very high-quality goods. In fact, the Silk Road trade and later trade with the Spanish was almost exclusively Chinese goods flowing out and gold and silver specie flowing in - mainly because their domestic production was good enough that foreign goods couldn't compete. This was enough of a thing that the Romans became concerned at the amount of specie flowing out of the empire to pay for silk and other Chinese goods.
The fact that the world's production of nutmeg until the 19th century was restricted only to the remote Banda islands I think falls in that category. The Dutch protected their source with vigilance.
Or just a List_of_ article or even just a category on Wikipedia. There are mentions, sometimes articles dedicated to, other cases but not organized across the topic that I can see, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage#History
I cant recall where you can see footage, maybe on the documentary "Murder Mountain" where they talk about smuggling Cannabis seeds from Afghanistan to California in the 1960s or 1970s by sewing the seeds into the edge-trimming-folds of (wallets?) to get the seeds into the US... then creating cannabis farms in mendocino county california...
During the 19th century there was an attempt to establish a silk industry in New England. The industry failed, but the White Mulberry (morus alba), imported to serve as the food source for the silkworms, is thriving in North America. It's invasive in many areas and has displaced the native mulberry, morus rubra.
It seems there's a lot of interest for Byzantine History on HN, that's fantastic! My friends and I have run a book club for the past four years on Ancient History with focus on the Eastern Roman Empire.
Most books we read were kind of dry. Here's a list of books I found readable and engaging if you want to delve deeper:
* Byzantium trilogy by Norwich. If you don't want to get all three, I suggest getting The Apogee (2nd volume). Fantastically readable and solid historical work with a generous side of gossip.
* Alexiad by Anna Komnene. Written around 1140 after Anna was deposed to a convent, this biography of her father, Alexios, has an immediacy that history books cannot match. The end will probably bring you to tears.
* Anecdota (Secret History) by Procopius. For pure titillation factor cannot be beat! Severe attack against Justinian, Theodora, Belisaurus, and his wife Antonina. "Severe" is an understamenet really, here's Procopius on Theodora's depraved youth:
On the field of pleasure she was never defeated. Often she would go picnicking with ten young men or more, in the flower of their strength and virility, and dallied with them all, the whole night through. When they wearied of the sport, she would approach their servants, perhaps thirty in number, and fight a duel with each of these; and even thus found no allayment of her craving. Once, visiting the house of an illustrious gentleman, they say she mounted the projecting corner of her dining couch, pulled up the front of her dress, without a blush, and thus carelessly showed her wantonness. And though she flung wide three gates to the ambassadors of Cupid, she lamented that nature had not similarly unlocked the straits of her bosom, that she might there have contrived a further welcome to his emissaries.
I like how easily television puts the event into a show set seven centuries later. That'd be like including the signing of the Magna Carta in a show about WWI.
This event lead to the Byzantines having a silk monopoly in Europe. It follows that the Venetians didn’t have the means to produce silk. They may have therefore tried to acquire said means. The show apparently depicts that attempt, with inspiration from the story in TFA.
Perhaps a naive question: What was so special about silk? It seems it was just a luxury article for the rich. I assume unlike today, not many people had a lot of disposable income to spend on luxury products. So I don't understand how silk could have been economically relevant compared to other non-luxury goods.
Readit News
I became a fan of the Byzantines and seriously found team Roman Catholic to be a bunch of barbarians. I say team Roman Catholic because this small book[1] makes Byzantine history and trivia so humorous.
[1] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-cabinet-of-byzanti...
The catholic/orthodox differences are largely just because of a thousand years of divergence, of speaking different languages and having relatively little interchange, of each individually having movements in response to internal pressures and trends not experienced by the other. Not going to get into a filioque debate on HN but the initial theological dispute, however significant you find it to be, is not the source of the most tangible differences in the two branches today. They've just each been doing their own thing for a millennium and their unique histories took them to two different places during that time.
I don't see how byzantine eunuchs indicates anything about priest celibacy, especially since orthodox priests are usually married. Eunuchs and celibate priests still come from families, they experience love and duty and allegiance and enmity. To the extent a position is admirable people will want to be in it and to the extent it's powerful people will use that power to benefit the people and things they value. No restriction on who can hold an office will by itself address those factors. Byzantine eunuchs got up to plenty of corruption and betrayal in their own right.
I assume by "barbarians" you mean the ottoman turks, but we have to be careful in reading byzantine history not to absorb byzantine attitudes about their rivals. The ottomans were a long-lived, sophisticated, and nuanced entity in their own right. Even their precursors and other byzantine neighbors were not as simple or simply motivated as byzantine or byz-sympathetic sources would indicate.
Orthodox? Which kind? I grew up Greek Orthodox but then I grew up more atheist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
which was a reaction to the empire becoming near completely dominated by westerns both economically and (to a lesser degree) politically.
The last coup attempt/civil war (which was also a near permanent issue in the empire) before the massacre was between a French Princess ruling the empire as a regent for her underage son and her stepdaughter who was married to a Frankish nobleman from the Outremer (he was -the second highest ranking official in the empire and seemingly the heir apparent together with his wife). Had they succeeded the Empire would probably have had its first Latin Emperor (or at least co-Emperor) without even being directly conquered. Of course instead it ended with late emperor's cousin* murdering (he forced the 12 year old emperor to sign her mothers death warrant and before having him assassinated soon after). mothers everyone and taking the throne for himself after he masterfully utilized the widespread public hatred towards the Latins amongst the general population..
*Andronikos Komnenos, who was in his middle 60s at the time and while being quite a terrible person had a very interesting life. Amongst other things (while in exile due all kinds of scheming) he seduced the former queen of Jerusalem (who happened to be his niece..) and up having two children with her after they ran away to the Turkish Sultanate of Damascus. Eventually she was captured by the emperor who used her to lure Andronikos into Constantinople and then (unfortunately for the emperor's son) decided pardon him and exile him to a remote province instead of executing him.
Deleted Comment
It seems like it was intellectual, but didn't have a proportional output of science or art that has stood the test of time.
Feel free to disagree and tell me why I'm wrong
Back in 541-542 an outbreak killed about 40% of the city’s population. But even during the period 1347-1453, a total of 61 plague reports were noted.
They only had the wealth, peace and population to focus on science to a very small degree. That they managed to stay afloat for as long as they did is a testament to the science the original Romans left them, and which we can thank the Byzantine's for preserving.
But they did produce significant art and science, and especially architecture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_science
There would have been no transmission of the classics without the Byzantine, and possibly no Renaissance in Europe.
the "byzantine" people actually called themselves Romans, and the empire was called "Roman Empire".
- In the East side of the empire, Constantine, the Roman emperor who moved the capital to Byzantium ("New Rome") was half-Greek, and the Greek element in the East meant this half of the Roman Empire had a stronger Greek ethnic presence.
- In the West side, the local Roman elite along with newly arrived Germanic peoples (the Franks) were Christianized and established the Papal states, of whose the Pope was king, the Catholic church, and realms that continued from the Roman Empire that was split into West and East. To make their claim over the Roman Empire stronger, there were fabrications of legitimacy (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine ) and a lot of religious infighting with the East.
In short, in terms of a continuum of emperors the Eastern empire was essentially uninterrupted.
Even before the breakup of the empire, Romans were a bit obsessed with lineage and being descendants of powerful Romans. This cultural element carried over in the next two millennia by many people claiming the role of the Emperor of Romans, until the victories of Napoleon forced the rest of Europe to dissolve the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 to prevent Napoleon from claiming the title for himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Holy_Roman_...
The two heads in the Byzantine flags, that is. Byzantines called themselves "Roman", and everyone else in the area called them "Rum" (i.e. "Roman") because they were Romans.
And this guy was the Last of the Romans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisarius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvzoAfpCvbw
The place the Byzantines got those eggs from tried that too, didn't always work out too great in terms of stability and good governance, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Attendants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zong_Ai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Tigers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei_Zhongxian
That was the case for "only" around a third to a half of the empire's existence. But by the 1000 ADs appointing eunuchs to high posts fell out of fashion with emperors appointing family members or leading in the field directly (unlike in Justinians day when emperors spent almost their entire reign being cloistered in the palace).
Somewhere between the first and third crusades there was a non-insignificant chance of the empire becoming much more integrated with Latin/Catholic west. Later Komnenian emperors started adopting Western customs, had fairly good relations with most Crusader and Western States and were attempting to reunite the both churches officially.
Of course this process culminated when a French princess became an effective ruler of the empire as a regent for her underage son, she surrounded herself with Latins and parceled off pretty much everything she could off to Italian Merchants. This was met with an extremely violent backlash culminating in her and her son being murdered and a literal genocide (or at least a massive pogrom) of all the westerns living in Constantinople (10-20% of all the people living in the city). And the split was made permanent by the even more violent sack during the 4th crusade by the westerners.
Or rather, "carrying it to an extreme". But we don't have to carry it that far. Eliminating inherited positions is a huge and sufficient improvement. If you go all the way to "no family or friends at all", yeah, I'd agree the problematic aspects might outweigh the benefits.
Ralph Nader comes to mind.
ok. why?
Samuel Slater brings cotton mill technology to America in 1789: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-industrial-esp...
Robert Fortune learns Chinese tea production methods and brings them to British India in 1848: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-great-british-tea...
Someone (maybe you!) should write a book about this!
https://geography.name/how-rubber-moved-to-asia/
> The Brazilian monopoly suffered a fatal blow in 1876. In that year the English explorer Sir Henry Wickham (1800–67) gathered about 70,000 seeds from wild rubber trees in the forest close to the city of Santarem, in the state of Para. Wickham smuggled the seeds out of Brazil and took them to Kew Gardens, London, where they were sown. Many of them germinated, and 3,000 seedlings were sent from London to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). In 1877, 22 rubber plants were sent from Ceylon to the Singapore Botanic Gardens. The trees were growing there when in 1888 Sir Henry Nicholas Ridley (1855–1956) arrived as the gardens' first scientific director. Ridley spent years studying the trees, and in 1895 he discovered a technique for tapping the latex without seriously harming the tree. That made it practicable to cultivate the trees commercially. In 1890 Ridley exhibited the first cultivated rubber trees, and in 1896 the first rubber plantations were established in Malaysia. Most of the trees were grown from Ridley's seeds. Growers went on to produce hardier, disease-resistant varieties, and large rubber plantations were developed in Ceylon and Singapore as well as Malaysia.
On their side the UK not only banned export of certain technologies to the US but they also banned emigration of the people knowledgeable about them.
This quote and the preceding paragraph about the distrust of the Chinese tea manufacturers are quite something. I hadn't considered the "made in China" stereotype for quality had been around for centuries.
Deleted Comment
Most books we read were kind of dry. Here's a list of books I found readable and engaging if you want to delve deeper:
* Byzantium trilogy by Norwich. If you don't want to get all three, I suggest getting The Apogee (2nd volume). Fantastically readable and solid historical work with a generous side of gossip.
* Alexiad by Anna Komnene. Written around 1140 after Anna was deposed to a convent, this biography of her father, Alexios, has an immediacy that history books cannot match. The end will probably bring you to tears.
* Anecdota (Secret History) by Procopius. For pure titillation factor cannot be beat! Severe attack against Justinian, Theodora, Belisaurus, and his wife Antonina. "Severe" is an understamenet really, here's Procopius on Theodora's depraved youth:
So, she fit the full Messalina archetype. Full text available at Fordham (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/procop-anec.asp). Here's an interesting paper on the depiction of Theodora in the Secret History (https://www.mcgill.ca/classics/files/classics/2004-09.pdf)* Chronographia by Michael Psellos covers the reigns of 14 emperors and empresses in a 100 time period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16