Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


View Poll Results: Who saved the Eastern Roman Empire?
Heraclius (610-641AD) 6 46.15%
Constans II (641-668AD) 1 7.69%
Constantine IV (668-685AD) 2 15.38%
Justinian II (685-711AD) 0 0%
Leo III (717-741AD) 3 23.08%
Constantine V (741-775AD) 1 7.69%
Constantine VI (780-797AD) 0 0%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 1st, 2014, 02:06 AM   #11

Belisarius's Avatar
Dominus Historiae
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: U.K.
Posts: 9,639

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajans chariot View Post
wrong question, not who but what.
Exactly.
Belisarius is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 3rd, 2014, 04:06 PM   #12

Thrasybulus's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Athens, Greece
Posts: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belisarius View Post
Exactly.
hmm could you elaborate, oh great general?
Thrasybulus is offline  
Old March 4th, 2014, 01:37 AM   #13

RoyalHill1987's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 984

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickey View Post
Byzantium doesn't survive without Justinian's work to relay the foundations of the empire. The map from Royal shows the Roman world as restored by Justinian and his generals Narses and Belisarius. Justinian gave the Eastern Roman empire the strength it needed to be able to resist the Arabs later on. Second credit to Leo III, definitely, for beating the Arabs at the high tide of their initial conquests, but the primary credit really has to go to Justinian.
Isn't there also an argument that Justinian's conquests actually weakened the Empire, by creating an opening for the Persians to attack? It was the Persian war that caused the Arab conquests by fatally weakening both empires.
RoyalHill1987 is offline  
Old March 4th, 2014, 03:49 AM   #14

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 1,103

Not really relevant but just reading El Mozarabe, the best selling historical novel by Jesus Sanchez Adalid.

El mozárabe: Amazon.co.uk: Jesús Sánchez Adalid: Books
El mozárabe: Amazon.co.uk: Jesús Sánchez Adalid: Books


Based on the youth of the dictator Abuamir (Almanzor) and also a christian contemporary who became bishop of Cordoba, it paints a well-researched picture of both Cordoba and Bizantium, which just before the Milennium were surely the 2 most powerful powers around after the decline of the Franks?

The picture of Bizantium is fascinating. What a strange place and you can see why people refer to 'Bizantine bureacracy'.

Step back 200 years and, regarding the Charlemagne debate above - in his early reign the Carolingian Franks had close ties to Baghdad and the Abassids, their enemies being the the Bizantines and the Omeyas in Cordoba, in turn allied with Bizantium and enemies of Baghdad.

Also in keeping with the debate Ferrin regards the islamic conquest/migration/beliefs which took over N Africa and Spain as the real heirs of Rome! Some heavy reading but some interesting takes on the whole thing.

HISTORIA GENERAL DE AL ANDALUS - EMILIO GONZALEZ FERRIN, comprar el libro en tu librería online Casa del Libro
johnincornwall is offline  
Old March 6th, 2014, 03:30 AM   #15

Nestor's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 214

mickey's got it. Very good.
Nestor is offline  
Old March 7th, 2014, 01:32 AM   #16

RoyalHill1987's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 984

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
Also in keeping with the debate Ferrin regards the islamic conquest/migration/beliefs which took over N Africa and Spain as the real heirs of Rome! Some heavy reading but some interesting takes on the whole thing.
The Ummayad Caliphate as the true successor to Ancient Rome?

Why does Ferrin make this argument?

For me personally, I can see it does make sense. The 'leader of civilisation' role clearly passed from the Roman Empire to the Arabs by c.700AD. From this point on, Byzantium was an impoverished Dark Ages rump state struggling to hold on to Anatolia and parts of the Balkans. The massive Arab Caliphate contained all the richest agricultural land, all the biggest cities, much of the trade wealth on sea and land, and unquestionably dominated the era.

It was in the Arab world that scientific advances continued and progressed beyond the knowledge of the ancients. The Arabs introduced irrigation techniques that boosted agriculture in Spain, Sicily and other areas of their empire. They advanced the study of mathematics and astronomy, built stunning monuments such as the Mezquita in Cordoba and the Alhambra in Granada.

Cordoba was the greatest city in Europe during the early Medieval period, with 450,000 inhabitants. By comparison, London had a mere 12,000. In Sicily, the population of Palermo under the Arabs (c.1000AD) was 150,000. Later, under Christian rule by 1300 the city declined to just 50,000.
RoyalHill1987 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
east, empire, roman, saved


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
East Roman Empire survives WeisSaul Speculative History 6 May 17th, 2013 12:39 AM
If greeks would not replaced latin in east Roman Empire church, still schisma? Perix Speculative History 0 March 4th, 2013 07:45 AM
Trustworthy maps of Roman Empire in Africa and Middle East ozrutan Ancient History 5 February 4th, 2013 01:28 PM
How much of the British Empire could have been saved? WeisSaul Speculative History 20 September 18th, 2012 06:29 AM
Would Frederick III have saved the German Empire (and Europe)? sleeming88 Speculative History 11 August 20th, 2011 04:55 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.