AHC: Best Possible "Medieval" Civilization

Thinking about it, I realize I don't know much about the Eastern Roman Empire's record when it comes to their academia, gender/sexual norms, or religious homogeneity, i.e. degree of "freedom of conscience" within practicers of the Orthodox faith, as well as social policies toward non-Orthodox (Latins, Jews, etc). I have some vague understanding of their political system and political economy, though I didn't know they performed so well, relatively speaking, in the latter (though, AIUI, they did have far less per capita "demand" for slavery than their islamic neighbors, which is a plus for our purposes). I'm kind of curious what @Carp or @LSCatilina have to say on this... or I suppose any of this board's many byzantine enthusiasts, for that matter.

The Byzantine Empire was religiously oppressive and culturally not particularly dynamic or creative. In all its history, it produced little of value in terms of poetry, philosophy (apart from Gemistus Pletho), scientific advancement or original thought. For my money, I'd probably go with Persia, in the period from c750AD to 1750. The achievements of Persia in the arts, in poetry, in philosophy, in the Sufism, were spectacular. Some of the more interesting and esoteric Sufi/Shia/Ismaili sects led a pretty wild sexual life, too. And the poetry of the Sufi love poets is full of reference to love and wine. Moderns would probably find much to enjoy in that environment. Although of course there was a deep spiritual side too which would require quite a bit of adjustment for a modern secular westerner, but it's not an impossible jump by any means.
 
@Byzantine fanatic Just to be thorough -- how would you say Persia fares in terms of security for Christians and Jews, rights for women, and general living standard? (For that matter, though it's far from a deal breaker, how "vertical" was their government compared to contemporaries?)
 
@Byzantine fanatic Just to be thorough -- how would you say Persia fares in terms of security for Christians and Jews, rights for women, and general living standard? (For that matter, though it's far from a deal breaker, how "vertical" was their government compared to contemporaries?)

Generally speaking, pretty tolerant, at least within the period c.640 to 1750 (Christians fared better under the Abbasids and later Islamic dynasties than they had under the Zoroastrian Sassanids in the period before 640). Christians and Jews had protected status and were usually left alone as long as they obeyed the law. In the period of the Abbasids, many Christian scholars escaped from religious persecution in the Byzantine Empire and came to study and teach at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad. As with any country, there were exceptions, notably the dark period under Timur (Tamerlane) in the 14th century when Christians were oppressed (although strictly speaking, Tamerlane was a Turko-Mongol not a Persian). In the 18th and 19th centuries, Protestant Christian missionaries were active in Persia and some people converted; their churches still exist today. In the period after 1500, Christianity grew in Iran as the rulers imported many Assyrian and Armenian Christians from nearby regions. They were still there until the early 20th century, when many of them were sadly killed by invading Ottoman troops from Persia's old rival, the Ottoman Empire. However, even today there are estimated between 127,000 and 200,000 Christians in Iran.

Rights for women? I'm not sure; in theory they had better status than women in many European societies. The reality as in many societies probably depends on social status, wealth level and to some extent their luck or lack thereof in marriage, as well as their family. I do know that the concept of purdah or seclusion was not really popular for most women except a very few elite rich women as a status symbol; most ordinary women couldn't afford to stay indoors as they were too busy outside working. Generally their clothes would be bright and colourful. Some women even became Sufi teachers, notably Rabia of Basra, who has been considered a feminist icon. She lived in the 8th/9th century. (Strictly speaking Basra is today in Iraq but at that time the modern political borders did not exist).

General living standard would have been quite high in the cities of Persia and also Persian-speaking central Asia, especially before the Mongol invasion of the 13th century. Some of these became massive centres of learning and scientific research and have been described as the engine of world civilisation in the period from about 750 to 1219. Certainly the wealth of Persia and the Silk Road was legendary throughout the pre-modern period. As for the government, I'm not really sure - it certainly wasn't a democracy, although I need to do more research as it's a little outside my area of specialism. Hope this helps!
 
Last edited:
@Byzantine fanatic Much thanks! So I guess the only remaining question is when, if ever, did medieval Persia suffer the biggest setbacks in terms of the standards we're talking about? (Though were I to guess, the Mongols and Tamerlane seem like safe bets.)
 

PhilippeO

Banned
what about Early Tang (pre845) Buddhism, Taoism, Christian and other religion and sect is tolerated. if you are not Abrahamic, its better than Byzantine and Persia. Women generally not as restricted as Song (although Tang engaged in slavery).
 

Deleted member 67076

The Byzantine Empire was religiously oppressive and culturally not particularly dynamic or creative. In all its history, it produced little of value in terms of poetry, philosophy (apart from Gemistus Pletho), scientific advancement or original thought.

The entire Macedonian, Komnenian, and Palaiologian Renaissances disagree. Furthermore Byzantium created important innovations in diplomatic, statecraft, espionage, international relations, and warfare. They were incredibly adept at copying outside influences to suit their needs from horse archery to heavily armored knights to state companies and economic theories.

Furthermore, for their time the Byzantines were a tolerant society, hosting the only Mosques in Christian territory during the High Middle Ages and being gracious in their dealings with outside powers of differing faiths such as the Mongols, the Abbasids, the Germans, and the Rus. This speaks of pragmatism and an open mind.

The notion of Byzantium as stagnant and stifling of innovation is to parrot off the old Gibbonist of a decadent and corrupt east.
 
Furthermore, for their time the Byzantines were a tolerant society, hosting the only Mosques in Christian territory during the High Middle Ages

That is a good point. I remember reading somewhere that during the Crusades, local citizens of Constantinople gathered together to protect a mosque in the city, against an attack by the western Crusaders. This took place in the 12th century. The Byzantines were certainly better than some western states (although not all western states were bad; the kingdom of Sicily is a notable exception, which enjoyed a period of tolerance for Greeks, Arabs and Latins in the 12th century).

That said, the Byzantines may have been more tolerant towards Muslims than 'heretical' versions of Christianity. Perhaps due to its 'foreign' association with Arabs and Persians, Islam wasn't seen as a threat, whereas Christian heresies seemed to undermine the fabric of society. A "heretical" Bogomil preacher called Basil the physician was tricked by the emperor Alexios I and killed by burning for his beliefs.

I know there was also tension between the Byzantines and Armenians, despite both ostensibly being Christian. And of course relations with the Catholic west were strained too. There was a period of positive interaction in the time of Manuel I Komnenos in the 12th century, but after his death it all went horribly wrong and led to the massacre of the Venetians, followed by the Fourth Crusade.
 
Top