Quote: (05-03-2016 12:54 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:
Thank you, Truth Teller. Again, I love your posts because they are accurate.
The next step is to call it truly for what it was: The Eastern Roman Empire, or even more provocatively, the "Roman Empire" which moved precisely because Rome was attacked. It's curious that the longest surviving modern empire (as I said, 300-1453, think of it!) is not taught in the west, at all, and even words in English refer to something as "byzantine" in a derogatory way. Rome, as we know it now, was really Franco-Roman, strengthened politically by the Frankish rulers, who then instigated the Great Schism and further led to more deleterious relations between East and West in a complex fashion, as Islam rose to power and conquest.
Yes, the biggest argument for relativization of Eastern Roman Empire is that east was supposedly the "less important " part, which is complete nonsense.
Eastern Roman Empire became cultural, economical and political center 200 years ago before Western Empire even fell ! With Constantinople being capital for same amount of time.
Not only that, but the famed Rome ceased to be capital even earlier, since many rulers considered it a decadent metropolis, and instead ruled from Ravenna etc.
The entire "Byzantine" narrative is entirely sourced from Catholic influence on scholarly thought.
That being said, it is fair to say that Carolingian Empire was at least in some way a decent continuation of Western Roman thought. Unfortunately, it didn't live long enough, and Papal interference didn't help either.