Did the Byzantine Empire really accomplish nothing in 1000 years?

Were the enlightenment fellas right?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    1,000 years without producing a single homosexual of Voltaire's caliber is the ultimate vindication of Helleno-Roman civilization.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I can name a lot of Byzantine philosophers with a large influence, to start with the School of Translators of Palermo were the ones translating their works and introducing them into West Europe, strongly influential during Renaissance.

      Plethon, Pseudo-Dyonisus, Photius, Cyril, Methodius, Planudes, Blemmydes, etc.

      Voltaire was a protestant pseud.
      Enlightment is protestantism.
      Protestants totally defeated by Scholastic Catholicism at XIX century.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's not just Voltaire, Gibbon's entire theory would fall apart if he had to admit that a Christian Roman Empire functioned just fine for the next 1000 years.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >functioned just fine
          LMAO

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How many countries would have survived for 1000 years facing the Persians, the Arabs in their greatest vitality, the Bulgars when they were one of the most powerful countries in Europe, the Slavs who spreading like fleas, the Turks who were by then the greatest warrior on earth, the backstabbing Venetians, and only fell to the Ottoman Empire who was the strongest empire of its time?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Byzantines were a worthless rump state. They could not even control the Balkans even before the arab conquests and only controlled coastal areas and thrace. Much of the Balkans was deromanized. Anatolia too suffered from byzantine incompetence. The byzantine strategy was to pour everything into Constaninople while sucking the rest dry.
            The Byzantine "empire" only had 3 hundred years as an actual empire. Most of the time they oscillated between losing and regaining territory but they always lost more than they gained.
            >only fell to the Ottoman Empire who was the strongest empire of its time
            dumb greeks and slavs were the only reason the ottomans even became more than a tiny beylik. The strongest power during the start of the ottoman conquests was Serbia. It was the greeks who led them to europe to fight their stupid civil wars.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You say that like it wasn't an accomplishment in itself. It was one of the longest surviving political entities and outlasted Rome itself by a big margin.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You say that like it wasn't an accomplishment in itself
            No being a dogshit empire isn't an accomplishment. Ottomans lasted 600 years but were only good for half that time and are rightly mocked relentlessly. The byzantines deserve even more scorn

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah? 600 years, not 1100 years. That's the point. For comparison, Russia is like 500 years old (if we start counting from Ivan the Terrible) and it wasn't even an empire by that point.

            >outlasted Rome itself
            753 BC to 476 AD
            >b-but most of the time was as a small power
            byzantines were the same except one key difference the romans grew the byzantines shrunk

            >753 BC to 476 AD
            Really generous way to count.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >1100 years. That's the point.
            And most of this time period was spent as a joke.
            >Ottomans lasted 600 years but were only good for half that time and are rightly mocked relentlessly. The byzantines deserve even more scorn
            reread my post byzaboo. my point is clear.
            >Russia is like 500 years old
            hmm
            >(if we start counting from Ivan the Terrible
            awfully convenient
            >it wasn't even an empire by that point
            same with the byzantines

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >awfully convenient
            moron, that's a well-established convention.

            >byzaboo
            I don't even care that much, but it's quite obvious to me that you're a butthurt Turk. That the ERE was resilient and survived as much as it did isn't controversial, even if it was "a joke" at times.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't even care that much
            you do why pretend otherwise.
            >but it's quite obvious to me that you're a butthurt Turk
            Lmao what the frick? I mocked the Turks as I mock your shitty empire. Are you butthurt because I revealed that it was the byzantine who enabled the ottoman conquest of europe and that they were barely involved in the balkan conflict? Even minor balkan powers like Wallachia, Moldava put 1000 times more effort than the greeks whether it be the byzantines or the frankish(lmao) greek states.
            >That the ERE was resilient and survived as much as it did isn't controversial, even if it was "a joke" at times.
            Except it was a joke most of the time. Empires have their bad years but if your bad years outweigh the good you will be mocked relentlessly especially when it comes to the topic of the byzantines as byzaboos try to tell people it was a great empire

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Really generous way to count.
            Imagine adding 60 years of Constantinians and Valentinians to pump your number to 1100. That's really pathetic. 1453 is generous as well. It really should be 1204.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In my eyes, it doesn't make much difference to the argument if you use 1204. I could even agree.

            But using the Roman Kingdom as the starting point for Rome is cringe.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But using the Roman Kingdom as the starting point for Rome is cringe.
            the most moronic thing I've read

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you really going to start counting "Rome" before the buckbreaking of Carthage and Tuscany? Are you homosexual?

            >I don't even care that much
            you do why pretend otherwise.
            >but it's quite obvious to me that you're a butthurt Turk
            Lmao what the frick? I mocked the Turks as I mock your shitty empire. Are you butthurt because I revealed that it was the byzantine who enabled the ottoman conquest of europe and that they were barely involved in the balkan conflict? Even minor balkan powers like Wallachia, Moldava put 1000 times more effort than the greeks whether it be the byzantines or the frankish(lmao) greek states.
            >That the ERE was resilient and survived as much as it did isn't controversial, even if it was "a joke" at times.
            Except it was a joke most of the time. Empires have their bad years but if your bad years outweigh the good you will be mocked relentlessly especially when it comes to the topic of the byzantines as byzaboos try to tell people it was a great empire

            If you're not a Turk, then why is the OE even mentioned in this thread?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Are you really going to start counting "Rome" before the buckbreaking of Carthage and Tuscany? Are you homosexual?
            Rome in the monarchy era already dominated the other latin cities.
            >If you're not a Turk, then why is the OE even mentioned in this thread?
            Gee I wonder why the empire who ended the byzantines is brought in a byzantine thread especially one about their lack of accomplishments. The purpose of bringing them up was to remind byzaboos like you that it was the byzantines who enabled the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. Who knows maybe you consider this to be an accomplishment

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Rome in the monarchy era already dominated the other latin cities.
            We were discussing the resilience of empires. Not the resilience of barely local powers.

            >the rest
            Don't insult my intelligence by pretending you're not a Turk

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >We were discussing the resilience of empires. Not the resilience of barely local powers.
            Not surprised. a byzaboo wouldn't understand the concept of the rise of an empire. It's completely foreign to them
            >Don't insult my intelligence by pretending you're not a Turk
            People who mock your empire don't have to be turks moron.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >byzaboo
            >your empire
            Why are you so emotional about this? I've barely had the opportunity to say anything about it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why are you so emotional about this? I've barely had the opportunity to say anything about it.
            you've been crying about it

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a byzaboo wouldn't understand the concept of the rise of an empire. It's completely foreign to them
            And a turk wouldn't understand the concept of existing as an empire after filling a power vacuum

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >outlasted Rome itself
            753 BC to 476 AD
            >b-but most of the time was as a small power
            byzantines were the same except one key difference the romans grew the byzantines shrunk

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They were doing their best in a rough situation

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They were doing their best in a rough situation
            Their situation wasn't actually rough. Their own moronic actions caused rough situations to happen.
            >Persian War
            Start moronic civil war allowing Persia to conquer the near east
            >arab conquests
            go full autism on religious orthodoxy on a population that hasn't been ruled by your empire for decades right after the persian war
            >Rise of Bulgaria
            Stupidly march armies into mountain ranges and fall for the same ambushes for hundreds of years. I recall only one byzantine empire scouting ahead.
            >loss of the balkans
            gut the balkan frontier defenses. turks and slavs take over most of the balkans. The "genius" idea emperor Maurice had was to force austerity on the army and force them to camp in winter leading to his obvious overthrow which led to the persian war
            >Arab Siege of Constantinople
            20 year anarchy and civil war.
            >Macedonian golden age
            new enemy (the Rus) beats their old enemy bulgaria and their main enemy the caliphate splinters. Byzantines think their recovery is due to their own actions which leads to
            >fall of anatolia
            emperors lose to their own conquered arab vassal and other humiliating losses. Turks start raiding. Conquer Armenia overextending your empire (why even conquer it leave it as a fricking buffer state). Ignore Armenia as the Turks conquer it. The Turks raid Anatolia. Byzantines gut their own military. Some guy goes to finally attack the turks. Loses but loss isn't bad but then a series of moronic civil wars occur. Fricking byzantines give cities and regions to turks in exchange for mercenaries to wars.
            >oops we just lost Anatolia

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            New emperor begs for help from the pope. Help arrives and beats the turks and reconquers lands. Byzashits can't help themselves and start backstabbing the crusaders who form their own states. Byzantines once more treat this as their own recovery rather than outside forces intervening. Play at being a regional power for a little bit. Eventually the chickens come home and bulgarian rebels, normans, crusaders, etc BTFO them. They form even more garbage rump states. They recover Constaninople by accident. Empire is just Thrace and a bit of western anatolia. Weaken the defences of their anatolian frontier (lmao drink every fricking time they do this) and lose anatolia to the ottomans. Engage in civil war after civil war. O shit the serbs just took 90% of our territory. The empire is now Constaninople and few tiny slivers in greece. During this time they bring the fricking ottomans over to europe and give them a base of operations which they use to conquer the Balkans. Byzantines just sit there and watch as the balkan powers and the ottomans fight it out as they are just a city state. Then the ottomans come and put them out of their misery

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it existed, it's not bad by itself

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most Church stuff before the Renaissance was basically copying Byzantine stuff

    Hagia Sophia had the greatest dome until the Florence Cathedral which was built 1000 years later. People often forget it was built in the 6h century, whereas most other great buildings were built much later

    Table fork

    Greek fire

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

    Was it the longest lasting empire of all? There's a lot of meme definitions on this page

Comments are closed.