The last day of Constantinople
blogs.bl.uk
blogs.bl.uk
If that has whet your appetite and you'd like a more in-depth telling of just this episode then you can skip right to : https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/895/pg895-images.html#l... and enjoy.
If you have an inclination, I'd heartily recommend the entire set of books. As an anecdote, it took me 2 years of reading 10-20 minutes per night most nights. I found it extremely enlightening and entertaining (Gibbon has a wicked wit).
As much as Gibbon is not in fashion these days, the research I did showed that the essential parts of our understanding of the nuts and bolts of the history haven't changed since it was written, and I don't think anyone else has contextualized and editorialized the whole story with as much intelligence and careful thought since.
I also found pretty well all the complaints about Gibbon's interpretation to have actually been though about and answered _by_ Gibbon in the text (in eloquent detail!), which I found surprising given the frequency with which he seems to be dismissed with simplistic arguments.
I got through a significant portion of the decline and fall but got bored somewhere after Justinian as the decline and fall of my interest in the Roman empire begins somewhere around the state conversion to Christianity.
I had a look at her back when I was reading, but also just now revisited some articles comparing them, and I couldn't find anything substantial that didn't boil down to a dislike of his style, or disagreement over approach.
I really would like to update any incorrect facts that I might have picked up when reading Gibbon, so something concrete would be much appreciated!
I'm not too worried about having picked up his conclusions, since I've come to my own based on the description of events and supplementing with a fair amount of other treatments (mostly "The Learning Company" stuff, for better or for worse)
Learning about roman history from him is like learning from Aristotle or Freud. It's not all wrong, but there are better sources, and if that's all you read, you'll be way more confused than enlightened.
I hear this a lot, but I really haven't been able to find much...is there an "errata" of where he is wrong on specific things that are material events in history?
[0] in a three part blog by Bret Devereaux https://acoup.blog/?s=roman+empire+fall
The German goths conquered Italy but chose to remain part of the Roman empire. The Roman emperor at the time was a child. The Goths sent him the the purple cape, purple being a color of kings.
The Roman historian who retold the story in the 16th century told it after the conquest of Constantinople. This retelling made it seem that the Roman Empire was succeeded by the German Goths, as the Holy Roman Empire. Either he did to throw shade at the Ottoman Empire as not being the real successors. Or he did this because he was a catholic, and the Roman Catholic Church had a problem with the Eastern Orthodox Churches and had been excommunicated by them as well as excommunicated them (until the 20th century). Or both.
His narrative led to the coining of terms East and West, something that continues today (aka western world). Pejoratively Eastern Europe is just alien to Western Europe as the “Eastern world”, hence why Ukraine gets so much flack.
He named the “Eastern Roman empire” as the “Byzantine” empire. This Byzantium term had not been used since ancient history preceding the Roman Empire. (It’s like calling northeast America as the Iroquois States, or midwest US as the French Plains, or southwestern US as the Mexican States.) Byzantium was the name that preceded Constantinople.
The eastern Roman Empire always called themselves the Roman Empire and claimed the territories of the western Roman Empire.
Now only if I could find the name of this historian.
Is it Hieronymus Wolf? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Wolf
so it may be true that the Goths in Italy were Romanized (as had repeatedly happened with conquerors, interestingly), the empire that remains after the Fall of Rome was, in total, different in character, culture, language and territory.
The state that emerged from this was were different to the Roman Empire rules by Justinian in many ways.
> after the Fall of Rome was
I would disagree that was the case in the 500s, the Fall of Rome was mostly seamless and most actual changes occurred years later.
Did they continue paying taxes? Was the military under the control of the Roman emperor? Did they maintain the road linkages and postal service between the Eastern and Western halves of the empire?
The Goths who took Italy for themselves were infact the army of the Western Empire which was basically dead for years now.
The Gothic king simply realized that there was no point in pretending anymore and just decided he’d rather be a ‘vassal’ of the emperor in Constantinople than have his own emperor in Ravenna.
The Goths actually left the local Romans to themselves in general the power of the senate in Rome possibly even increased during the period cause they were no in charge of the Latin population who were still governed by a separate law code to that of the Germans.
Nobody really says that the people at that time called themselves Byzantine, anyways. I've heard some derogatory remarks about the phrase "Holy Roman Empire" though - that it wasn't holy nor Roman nor an empire. But it serves as a name which is useful.
The Byzantines primary language was Greek. Followed by Latin, and included most of what is today, modern Turkey.
Turkey was not even a thought at that time. Calling it Turkish would be appropriation of the Greek culture.
Did you know Istanbul is the same word as Constantinople? It's like a slang version.
I'm probably talking to a Greek person, so I can't really say anything smart and not offend you. Kyrie eleison Kyrie eleison kyrie eleison... ;-)
Having multiple emperors was perfectly acceptable though, if not entirely practical most of the time.
The current concept of Eastern Europe is firmly grounded on the notion of Cold War. The concept of Eastern Roman Empire has nothing to do with Eastern Communist Europe. I think your jump in connecting both strands is not at all justified.
"This principle gives the reason why we attribute regular events to a particular cause. Some philosophers have thought that these events are less possible than others and that at the play of heads and tails, for example, the combination in which heads occurs twenty successive times is less easy in its nature than those where heads and tails are mixed in an irregular manner. But this opinion supposes that past events have an influence on the possibility of future events, which is not at all admissible. The regular combinations occur more rarely only because they are less numerous. If we seek a cause wherever we perceive symmetry, it is not that we regard a symmetrical event as less possible than the others, but, since this event ought to be the effect of a regular cause or that of chance, the first of these suppositions is more probable than the second. On a table we see letters arranged in this order, C o n s t a n t i n o p l e, and we judge that this arrangement is not the result of chance, not because it is less possible than the others, for if this word were not employed in any language we should not suspect it came from any particular cause, but this word being in use among us, it is incomparably more probable that some person has thus arranged the aforesaid letters than that this arrangement is due to chance."
See Imam Nazar Hosein's book titled "Constantinople in the Quran": http://imranhosein.org/n/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Constant...
Hovewer over last decade or so, Istanbul is being assimilated into Turkey. Many orthodox muslim turkish immigrants from east part of Turkey. More radicals... Foreigners are not so welcomed anymore...
1. Each year’s crop of UT students constitutes a large fraction of Austin transplants. But that doesn’t seem possible, as I can’t imagine that’s more than 20k a year.
2. Most transplants are from Texas, but every other Texas metro is experiencing similar intra-state migration, and so every big city in Texas is hollowing out the state’s hinterlands.
This is a bit off topic, but I don't think it's right to say that London is not culturally part of the UK. As the only very large city London has its own identity, but I don't think you can usefully assign an identity to the UK or England minus London. The bigger divide lies along age, class, and education.
So Manchester, Bristol, and many of the university cities end up being more culturally similar to inner London. They are all places younger people with degrees move for education and employment and many spend a decade in London starting their careers after finishing their degrees elsewhere, before moving on again to find more space for a family.
Then on the other side of the divide you have parts of outer east London like Dagenham which are perhaps more culturally similar to other struggling post-industrial places like Stoke or Middlesborough.
That's a weird thing to say given that Turkish people themselves are complaining that Istanbul (in particular Fatih, which was the center of Constantinople) is being taken over by Arabs and Africans (Sub-Saharan). That seemed true to me a year ago when I was there. Are you sure you are not mistaking Arabs for Turks? The Turks I met are mostly white and the one living in Istanbul are quite "cosmopolitan".
The genetic makeup of Anatolia did not change that much due to the Turkic invasion. Moat people in Turkey are still descendants of the Greeks, Armenians, Kurds and other who lived there for thousands of years before the invasions.
There was a significant influx from the Balkans and Ukrainian steppes etc. during the the Ottoman period due to the extensive importation of slaves.
But otherwise the Turkish population at least in the west and most other coastal regions os indistinguishable from the rest of the Mediterranean region genetically.
The name "Istanbul" is believed to be a contraction of "Eis tin polin" ("To the inner city") in Greek which was a commonly used term in daily chatter, and possibly adopted literally by Turks.
Yup: in fact many Jews, Christian schismatics etc fled from the terrors of the Inquisition in Europe to the Ottoman empire.
I don’t really know why would that ever matter at this point though.
The point is, those were cruel times in most of the world - today we are relatively better off. However, I think we need to acknowledge the cruelty of the past to avoid it in the future. Rewriting history to make ourselves feel better is likely not the solution.
In contrast, non-Muslim religions in Ottoman Empire had a right to have their own judicial system. They were exempt from laws of sharia. They were free to practice their religion. They were exempt from military conscription. That was way beyond the norms of the era. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Ottoman_Em...)
I'm not trying to whitewash Ottoman Empire, I'm just stating the facts. The fact is that Ottoman Empire was relatively progressive at the beginning compared to oppression-ridden Byzantine/Roman rule in their decline at the time. Ottoman Empire itself had also succumbed to the same decline and increased oppression over the centuries of course. "Ottoman bad" is just a unconstructive simplistic perspective and fails too short to understand its centuries old reign.
Yes, what'd been done to Armenians was a crime of humanity, but you can't have these as black & white. We're talking about a centuries of different rulers, philosophies, understanding of ethics and morals, and sociopolitical conditions.
Do we need to bring up native Americans and slavery whenever we need to praise how progressive US constitution was? As a matter of fact, even during its decline, Ottoman Empire managed to become the one of the first countries in the history to decriminalize homosexuality.
I think it's more helpful to recognize and understand the nuances of history.
"For strategic reasons, the Ottomans forcibly converted Christians living in the frontier regions of Macedonia and northern Bulgaria, particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries. Those who refused were either executed or burned alive."
I agree with you about the nuances of history. I also have a gut reaction every time I see a discussion about the "glory of XYZ" empire. I like the art, architecture etc, but those came at a cost, and I think most are quick to hush hush it as a strategic necessity - the history of the USA included.
I don’t think that’s the right attitude to take, history is not necessarily “linear” all the time.
e.g. there was a period during the Reconquista when Jews and moderate Muslims were fleeing to the Christian kingdoms in the North after a radical Muslim sect from North Africa invaded Iberia to help “protect” the local Muslim population.
After the reconquista was over the Spanish suddenly (well not exactly but almost) decided that they are not into religious tolerance anymore…
The Byzantine empire was really into heavily oppressing religious minorities initially (both other Christian sects and especially Jews and Samaritans, the latter were almost eradicated..).
However by the 1000s the Empire was probably one of the nicer places to be a Jew in (and Christian minority sects were mostly left to their own).
Then the crusades happened…
Then the restored empire under Palaiologoi dynasty again became relatively very tolerant towards religious minorities by the standards of the time.
> oppression-ridden Byzantine/Roman rule in their decline at the time
Citation needed. The late Roman Empire (after ~900s AD) was generally one of the most progressive and tolerant states in Europe (outside of some relatively brief periods)
> Armenians was a crime of humanity, but you can't have these as black & white.
In this specific case you undoubtedly can. There shouldn’t be any question whatsoever
> managed to become the one of the first countries in the history to decriminalize homosexuality.
Which is commendable but they were still preceded by about 10-15 European or Latin American states.
Is really not something that would describe the medieval Roman empire (or pre-medieval one as well to be fair) very well.
It was the most centralized state in Europe well into the high middle ages. It had a large professional army, navy and bureaucracy (unlike every other state) and a relatively very high tax burden to match it.
Which is one of the reasons many of their subjects really didn’t mind being conquered that much. The Germans, Arabs, Turks, Bulgarians were generally more “hands-off” and less into persecuting religious minorities (at least during the initial periods after the conquest).
https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/
It’s truly in depth and picks up around where Mike Duncan stopped (roughly) after the History of Rome podcast ended.
I enjoyed this. Really well made and some great actors in there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_(Not_Constantinople...
The song’s appearance on MTV’s Liquid Television was my introduction to TMBG.
Rise of the ottomans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfb9fIMzuRw&list=PLaBYW76inb...
Fourth crusade and the restoration of the roman empire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vp_IENiSnA&list=PLaBYW76inb...
For reasons that are not entirely clear it remained a medieval, stagnating center well past the time it was safe to do so.
Eventually it got dismembered, first by the rising new European powers and finally by newcomers from Asia.
The resulting new equilibrium wiped out thousands of years of Greek/Hellenistic cultural influence in the Eastern Med basin and successor societies in the region have practically no connection with that heritage.
I think you made it quite clear. It was very developed very early, and it got complacent. When competition came knocking it had no further source of advantage and quickly lost ground until it was gobbled up by a rising polity.
Always kind of amazed to think how recent this was. Columbus did his discovering only about 40 years later.
Constantinople was in unfriendly hands.
Most trade with the east was done through the Levant and Egypt.
If you're trying to transport things by water, say, along the Black Sea, things will end up in Constantinople.
That isn't to say the Ottomans completely shut down trade, but they did charge significantly more.
Also weren’t the main ‘goods’ exported from the area north to the black sea mainly slaves and grain?
IIRC The demand for slaves in the Ottoman empire only increased in the 1500s.
I wish this was written in the beginning so I could stop reading there. Constantinople became Istanbul (officially) only after the Republic.
Yes, the "cleaning" was stupid. People didn't realise they were meant to be painted.
From whom? Whoever Elgin paid money to certainly didn’t own the marbles, and the firman that he quoted doesn’t exist. He helped himself to set up his own personal museum.
>from being ground up to be made into cement
Only the marble that was on the ground was ground up into lime. Elgin pulled friezes off the Parthenon, that’s a big difference.
The Acropolis Museum has spaces reserved for the return of the marbles to their ancestral home. A museum that’s climate controlled and employs people who care about these artifacts a lot more than the British Museum [1]
It seems to me that the people running the British Museum want to hold onto the Marbles lest other governments demand their antiquities back, if the Marbles ever make it back home.
[1] https://www.ekathimerini.com/culture/1166224/possible-water-...
Are you saying the Parthenon friezes were being ground into cement? That's interesting, I had never heard of that.
What I had heard was that the Parthenon sustained most of its destruction during the Ottoman occupation, during fighting with Venetians:
Prior damage to the marbles was sustained during successive wars, and it was during such conflicts that the Parthenon and its artwork sustained, by far, the most extensive damage. In particular, an explosion ignited by Venetian gun and cannon-fire bombardment in 1687, whilst the Parthenon was used as a munitions store during the Ottoman rule, destroyed or damaged many pieces of Parthenon art, including some of that later removed by Elgin.[64] It was this explosion that sent the marble roof, most of the cella walls, 14 columns from the north and south peristyles, and carved metopes and frieze blocks flying and crashing to the ground, destroying much of the artwork. Further damage to the Parthenon's artwork occurred when the Venetian general Francesco Morosini looted the site of its larger sculptures. The tackle he was using to remove the sculptures proved to be faulty and snapped, dropping an over-life-sized sculpture of Poseidon and the horses of Athena's chariot from the west pediment on to the rock of the Acropolis 40 feet (12 m) below.[65]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles#Morosini
I had also heard that the Ottomans had been taking the lead from columns to make into bullets, which caused the besieging Greeks to send them their own to avoid the destruction:
During the first siege the besieged Ottoman forces attempted to melt the lead in the columns to cast bullets, even prompting the Greeks to offer their own bullets to the Ottomans in order to minimize damage.[67]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles#War_of_Independe...
So are you saying the occupying Ottomans, or the Venetians maybe, were grounding the Parthenon friezes to cement and Elgin stole them to preserve them?