I agree with the first paragraph, but I'd rather blame the overwhelming decadence of the Empire, somewhat enlarged by weak emperors. If the state and the society was healthy and ready for sacrifices, we wouldn't witness the crumble and division after the Crusaders attack.
I echo this statement. The Romans were known for, among other things, their professional military, massive empire, detailed and effective law codes, contributions to architecture, sanitation, philosophy, and providing the political, cultural, and linguistic background for western europe in the middle ages. Yes, they were also known for their negative impact on the environment, including gladiatorial contests which were cruel to man and beast alike, having slavery as a major driving force of the economy, political intrigue, and for political cheuvanism. They were not known for misogyny, even if they would be considered misogynistic by modern standards, because relative to the world at the time, they weren't.So why are you on this thread then?
Source please.?
Byzantium replaced a slave-driven economy for a serf-driven one, which is almost the same;
Let's avoid opinions and focus on facts. The loss of Egypt and Syria, did not finish the Empire. It managed to survive their loss for and additional 800 years. Longer than some other countries have been around.They were also known for losing large tracts of land at a time, which is probably more important than the longevity of a state that quickly became centered on a few fortress-cities and trade instead of arable land and natural resources.
When the definition of God himself is at stake, there are hardly tiny differences. And last time I checked, Iconoclasm hardly affected diplomatic relations, or the lack of, with the Arabs and Bulgars. The West, considered a backwater, was ignored, and there weren't any throats slit.And last of all: Realpolitik? Really? This being said of the people that wouldn't convert to the same religion, with a few tiny differences, in order to secure maximum Western support? And the people who slit throats and caused civil wars over the issue of Iconoclasm? That doesn't sound like Realpolitik to me.
?
Byzantium replaced a slave-driven economy for a serf-driven one, which is almost the same; at least, with serfs, the lord doesn't have to feed or clothe them at all.
They were also known for losing large tracts of land at a time, which is probably more important than the longevity of a state that quickly became centered on a few fortress-cities and trade instead of arable land and natural resources.
And last of all: Realpolitik? Really? This being said of the people that wouldn't convert to the same religion, with a few tiny differences, in order to secure maximum Western support? And the people who slit throats and caused civil wars over the issue of Iconoclasm? That doesn't sound like Realpolitik to me.
Not every. There were a few more matriarchal societies in Europe back then.
The Greeks and Romans get way too much credit for what was just as much created by the Germans, the French, and the English.
Or rather using one barbarians against others.
It doesn't mean we must like them either.