The Renaissance in the Shadow of a Byzantine Empire

[Faeelin]

This is something of a rambling post, but...

We've had a lot of TLs about the Byzantines surviving, going on to retake Greece, Egypt, etc. But what does this do to Western thought?

In OTL, the Byzantines were the annoying jerks who everyone referred to as the Greek Empire or hte Kingdom of Greeks. But an aggressive Byzantine state that's sacked Milan is a different beast entirely, an alien land ruled by an emperor who blasphemes Christ in heretical rites. What happens to interest in the Romans, and the classical period, in general, if that happens?

It occurs to me that the Franks, early on, contended that they were descended from Israelites, and that while the Romans had crucified Caesar, they had liberated him. Perhaps the King of France revives a similar argument?

 

[ByzantineMan]

OTL, the Byzantines were what I like to call the "Odd man of Europe."

Byzantine culture, military, and history were very different than the rest of Europe.

If the Byzantine Empire were to survive with:

-Egypt
-Anatolia
-Greece/Thrace
-The Holy land
-Enough of Southern Italy to sack Milian

Then the fear of an all-powerful Byzantine Empire may convince the west that they totally are not Romans. However, none of this stops the Byzantines from considering themselves "Romans," Emperors from calling themselves "Roman Emperors" or the country itself being called the "Roman Empire."

Regardless of what the west thinks, the Byzantine Empire is the "Roman Empire." Especially if it rules the city of Rome itself. Nonetheless, the west could define "Roman" as what we see in classical antiquity, thus making the Byzantines not Roman. Everybody wanted to be "Roman" back in those days, but the Roman Empire still existed, nobody really wanted to give up the chance of being the "Roman Empire" to the actuall surviving Roman Empire.

 

[LSCatilina]

We've had a lot of TLs about the Byzantines surviving, going on to retake Greece, Egypt, etc. But what does this do to Western thought?

Western perception of Byzantines was, obviously, changing with time.
Before the Peppinid takeover, one could safely say that Byzantines were percieved as the Roman Empire without any real issues (at the possible exception of Wisigothic Kingdom, but I'm not sure it was a matter of principle rather than mere hostilty on Spania province grounds).

Merovingian world, after all, was in the same continuity than Constantinople : don't get me wrong, they were quite different, but based their culture (and critically their political culture) on same referents.
The bloody conquest of Italy probably put Byzantines in a real bad light (Ostrogoths beneficing of a certain form of prestige in the west), but I'd say that Peppinid/Carolingians represented a rupture there : even if you had grounds before, it appeared officially.

It doesn't mean that "Roman" was claimed by Carolingian, hence the really twisted title of Charlemagne : "Emperor ruling over the Roman Empire", not Roman Emperor or Emperor of the Romans.
At this moment appeared an historiography where Franks freed themselves (and others) from roman tyranny, and where the old empire was more or less in bad light.

It wasn't an overheliming position of course, and Rome (as in Late Imperial Rome) remained a reference. Among clergy of course, but as well in Italy or southern Gaul.

You can see in Urban II preach for crusade, for exemple, that Byzantium is called "Romanie", Romania.

I'd say that the perception of Byzantium in the west essentially depended on their political relations rather than a cultural point of view.
When relations were good, or promised to be such; no real tentative to deny "Romanity" was made (It's obvious with emperors as Manuel Commenos that beneficied from an extremely positive perception among Latins).
When it was not the case, critically if Byzantine were seen as aggressors, not solidary of Christianity (especially during Crusades), there things went bad.

Long story short (sorry to have expanded it a bit), more aggressive would be Byzantines on Latin Christianity, less they would be acknowledged as Romans safe a total conquest, or crushing victory (and even that isn't a given. Greeks didn't percieved Latin Empire as the rightful one because it had Constantinople).

It occurs to me that the Franks, early on, contended that they were descended from Israelites

The most important myth on the origin of Franks was they were originally Troyans. You have something about French language coming from Hebrew, but it's more of a Renaissance thing.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

We've had a lot of TLs about the Byzantines surviving, going on to retake Greece, Egypt, etc. But what does this do to Western thought?

Are we talking here about a Roman Empire that never loses Egypt et al here, or a Byzantium that retakes it following a POD after 900 or so?

Because that'll probably impact things.

 

[Riain]

If the Byz retain or regain their lands in the east will there even be a Renaissance? The Renaissance occurred soon after the fall of Outremer and impoverishment of Byzantium and the rise of ostensibly hostile Islamic powers, but before that Italian city states had a very strong presence in the east and constant contact between the east and Italy. If this contact had continued and even increased would there be a need for rebirth, presumably one of the push factors behind the Renaissance?