Byzantium is overrated there was almost nothing unique about them

Kill yourself today

>>563447
>Trying to be this edgy

>>563447
OP is overrated

Kill yourself T*rk enabler

t- Turk

File: 1452254645609.jpg (9KB, 165x231px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 165x231px

>>563447
You turk fag

What was left of the Roman Empire died in the Sacking of Constantinople.

>>564150
Venice is still bro tier to be not the opposite of honest familiarity

>>563447
>>564172

true

Kill yourself turkroach

true.

I can't even comprehend why they are romanticised on /his/

It is overrated as shit. I say this as someone who wants to study Byzantium as a professional. Just because they were interesting doesn't mean they were that great.

File: constantinople2.jpg (660KB, 1333x704px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 1333x704px

>there is nothing unique about a centralized realm with an efficient bureaucracy surviving in christian medieval europe cosplaying as the Roman Empire

File: tumblr_inline_nrgtyfCtnE1t79fgm_1280.jpg (80KB, 800x537px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x537px

>>567286
>surviving
yeah... about that...

Byzantium would be impressive if it sprang from the ashes of the Roman Empire and built itself up from nothing. But all it was the Roman Empire as it had survived after being chipped away for centuries. Its administration and armies are less impressive when you realize those were just hand-me-downs from a superior age; even then the Byzantines failed to reverse the decline despite a millennium of trying desperately.

Culturally, the empire is fascinating for being an amalgamation of different elements like Hellenism and Christianity and bridging the gap between Antiquity and the Middle Ages. But it was a fucked up civilization in a lot of ways that failed to be the ideal Christian society or reenact the glories of Rome.

When I look at a map and see that there is a place called Turkey where Byzantium once was, I really don't care.

>>567302
1453 is usually seen as the end of the Middle Ages so they survived right up until the end.

>>567333
>2016
>still falling for Western European historical revisions

>>563459
>richest country in Europe
>most educated country in Europe
>ideal position geopolitcally
>ideal position strategically
>conquered by smelly Turks

You can't make something like that up. They were inbred masters of decadence.

>>567392
>smelly turks

Look at this infidel

>>567392
>Get Conquered by Uncivilised Snownigs

>>567545
You mean western rome right ?

>>567333
You're wrong because you only know basic history

Eastern Roman Empire rose under Justinian and fell into darkness after the Islamic conquests. However it was able to reinvent itself with emperors like Basil the II whom destroyed the Slavs, Bulgars and Arabs and expanded his realm. The new theme system was created which was a complete reinvention, the military was the best in the world, especially it's training programs.

File: 1.jpg (208KB, 790x564px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 790x564px

>>567556

>However it was able to reinvent itself with emperors like Basil the II

The conquest of Bulgaria began in 968 and lasted until 1018. It was a dreadfully long war that was only achieved because Bulgaria was first conquered by the Rus, who then ceded it to the Byzantines, and then the Byzantines spent the next half century attempting to crush what was essentially a rebellion. The victory of Basil II does not erase the humiliating defeats inflicted by Khans Tervel and Simeon and the Emperor Simeon.

> and Arabs

Literally the only tactically impressive battles won over Arabs were last minute victories against armies that besieged Constantinople. The only conquests won over the Arabs was the conquest of Crete (a pirate stronghold that resisted for over a century), the Hamdanid Emirate (an independent state in Syria that was only partially conquered and managed to defeat an emperor who tried conquering Aleppo itself), and some cities along the Taurus and Anti-Taurus mountains. Conquering Crete, Antioch, or Edessa is pitiful when you realize that these were only reconquests, and far greater territories in Syria, Egypt, Sicily, and Africa were never regained.

>and expanded his realm. The new theme system was created which was a complete reinvention

The Theme system is vastly overrated. Byzantium's survival in the centuries after the Arab conquests depended largely on Constantinople's defenses and the possible uses of Greek fire. It was not until Constantine V, a full century after the Arab conquests, that the Byzantines were begin offensives against their enemies in earnest, and it was not until Nikephoros II, a full two centuries later, that real conquests began.

>the military was the best in the world, especially it's training programs.

Sure, if you only look at Basil II or Justinian at the absolute peak of their reigns and ignore China. Pick a random emperor out of a hat and ask again. I still posit that Byzantium was stagnant 85% of the time.

>>567375
Yeah guess why it's considered the end of the middle ages

>>563475

>Turk enabler

oh yeah like that empire that married off lots of its princesses to the Ottomans whilst handing north africa and the middle east to the arabs on a platter thanks to their persecution of native christians

what was that empire called again?

>>567556
Came here to post this. The Eastern Empire was going the way of the west after Justinian, it provided the best parts of its history after. Basilio il Macedone, the Comneno dinasty, dat struggle against the Italian Normans, dat politics in the middle east with the Crusader states, the Catalan Company.even the Empire of Nicea is interesting in its own right.

File: 1449958278873.jpg (572KB, 2048x845px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 2048x845px

>>563447
They might not look so appealing today, they are overshadowed by the later middle ages and Renaissance, but when Byzantium was founded they were basically allowed to start anew with what the Roman Empire had accumulated over the centuries. They built the Valens Aqueduct (250 fucking kilometers!), Theodosian Walls, Hagia Sophia, etc., which were simply godlike at the time. Hagia Sophia was built in the 6th century, go and look at the rest of Europe then. They had a very advanced sense of diplomacy and statecraft; a centralized state with permanent provinces and shit all which lasted longer than Rome itself and didn't depend on great men empires often did. They pioneered Christianity. The culture they preserved or created laid the foundations of the western renaissance, and before then it was the America of the time in cultural exports. They gave us the fork.

>>563447
>there is nothing unique about them
I know almost nothing about the byzantine empire other than that it was a direct continuation of eastern rome, but what does the uniqueness of a civilization have to do with anything?

They just shielded Europe against sand people for a thousand years, without any kind of help, no big deal.

Their fall brought end to the dark ages, as their scholars and artists went west

File: Fourth Crusade.jpg (115KB, 891x960px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 891x960px

>>564150
>>567392
>>567545