- This topic has 3 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
Do you think that the Eastern Roman Empire – that which became known as the “Byzantine” – is somewhat forgotten about in modern times? I think it's quite impressive how the Eastern Empire was able to carry on the legacy of Rome so that even after Rome declined and fell in the 5th century the Roman ideal was not destroyed. I think that the Byzantine Empire brought stability to the region as being a kind of “buffer” against early Islamic expansionism, as well as threats from other groups in the East. In this sense, its existence aided the West's development. Along these lines (and in light of Constantinople's development), was Diocletian's decision around the beginning of the 4th century to split the Empire in two a wise one?
Diocletian's move to split the Empire was inevitable. Bureaucratic bloat necessitated the decentralization of governmental power into smaller spheres.
Diocletian's move to split the Empire was inevitable. Bureaucratic bloat necessitated the decentralization of governmental power into smaller spheres.
I thought it was because of the opposite of "bureaucratic bloat" -- because they didn't have enough administrators. The empire was simply too large (and probably complex) to efficiently govern from a single location. Perhaps Diocletian also sensed that threats to the Empire would likely have come from the East. Having a significant power base in that area would have been a hedge against that danger.
Diocletian's move to split the Empire was inevitable. Bureaucratic bloat necessitated the decentralization of governmental power into smaller spheres.
I thought it was because of the opposite of "bureaucratic bloat" -- because they didn't have enough administrators. The empire was simply too large (and probably complex) to efficiently govern from a single location. Perhaps Diocletian also sensed that threats to the Empire would likely have come from the East. Having a significant power base in that area would have been a hedge against that danger. I think we're saying the same thing, but from different angles. Yes the Empire had grown too large to administrate from Rome alone, but the bureaucratic structure of Rome had grown so complex and redundant, two capitals were needed to sort out the mess. Language barriers, geography, cultural differences, and the need to efficiently collect taxes warranted the two capital model. However, with decentralization came the inevitable decay of the central power structure.
I think the Byzantine Empire doesn't get the attention it deserves. The population of Constantinople fell from something 500,000 to 50,000 in the decades preceding its conquest by the Ottomans. I believe it was the flight of the artisans and merchants from Constantinople to Italy that was cause of the Renaissance.
That's an interesting theory, one I hadn't heard before. I suppose if it is the case we would be able to see a corresponding increase in Eastern/Byzantine art and architectural influence in Italy in the 15th century. I'm not familiar with any offhand but it's something I'll look out for in my studies.
A significant portion of the scholors, artisans, wealthy mearchants, etc. left Constantinople in the half century before it fell. Not all went to Italy, but many did. As I said above, I believe their collective impact resulted in time resulted in the Renascence. It's the best explanation I've heard for:--What started the Renascence--Why the Renascence began in Italy.
