Byzantinism

[Storebought]

This thread was inspired by this post:

"Chaos" is not a term really lived up to by the content of the article, but it is a rather interesting airing of the Vatican's laundry. I leave it to the reader to assess how dirty it is. Anyway, the political system in the US is not the only one that seems rather dysfunctional and Byzantine.

For reference:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For background, see Was There Ever Byzantinism?.

The word "byzantine" existed as an epithet since the 16th century, and the negative attitude of the west towards the Byzantine Empire started long before that, at least since the Iconoclasm era. In the modern era, byzantinism has come to mean

Caeseropapism: Even after later emperors divested themselves from all theological disputes after the Iconoclasm schisms, the belief that the Orthodox church -- religion itself -- was a puppet of the state established itself. Inherent within this is the notion of conditional ethics and situational morality.

Institutional decay: the number of civil offices and military ranks spiraled even as their responsibilities shrank and the country lost territory and population.

Despotism: The Byzantine emperor merely inherited the titles and prerogatives of the late Roman emperors, but somehow these developed sinister overtones when translated from Latin (imperator) into Greek (autokrator). The loss of the Senate and the Curia meant that the emperor had literally no constitutional check on his power outside of the fact that he had to remain an Orthodox Christian.

Cultural decadence: During the Early Middle Ages, despite the religious conflicts, Byzantine culture, both material and intellectual, were deeply envied in the west, especially in Germany. By the 12th century, though, western visitors openly mocked Byzantine court culture as pretentious and effeminate -- perfumed men in fancy robes who were experts in grandiloquence but deathly afraid of a fight. Even their luxury goods and wine were no longer in demand except among their Slavic tributaries. To be fair, Byzantine intellectual influence in the west did recover in the 14th century, but by then the empire was a ransacked shell of itself.

It's not only western scholars who believe (or rather assume) this. Even (according to the article I linked) Russian and Soviet academics never refuted byzantinism as an idea so much as rallied around it as an expression of the eternal resilience of the Peoples of the Orthodox Faith against the lies of the west, or something.

The interesting question is, to what extent is any of this actually true?

[Storebought]

One correction: The Byzantine Senate did last throughout the existence of the empire, but during the reign of the Macedonians in the 900s, it served virtually no constitutional role in "ratifying" the accession of the Emperor. The Emperor was understood by that time to be a solely God-ordained position, even when the emperor himself was a usurper. "Senator" was just another title that could be bought off from an emperor looking for favorites.
--

Originally, the Eastern Empire inherited the offices of the Roman Empire like the magisterium militum, but these mostly fell into obsolescence after the wars, invasions, religious uprisings, and plagues of the 5th and 6th centuries, just like they had in the west. Unlike the west, these had been replaced, but not in the orderly and systematic way that Diocletian and Constantine had done.

There is a treatise on the titles, offices, and dignities of the Byzantine Empire of about the 9th century that you all are just dying to read here. At the time, there existed (at least)

Nineteen grades of palace dignitaries, each with his own insignia and privileges

Seven classes of administrative officials: strategoi (generals), domestikoi (domestics), kritai (prefects, judges), sekretikoi (secretaries), demokratai (city councilors), stratarchai (military adjuncts), and assorted groups, each with a half-dozen or more areas of responsibility.

Two classes of roles allotted specifically for eunuchs, including eight grades of palace eunuchs alone.

This level of specialization/bureaucratic mission creep is remarkable when you compare it contemporary governments, say, the court of the Carolingians. The only real rivals to it are the Church of Rome and the Republic of Venice -- and both of those originated as Byzantine vassals.

These offices were open, as such, to all subjects of the empire, even if aristocrats were overwhelmingly favored for them. That was what raised the hackles of the western visitors/ambassadors to the Empire, that low-born people could parade through the capital bearing every splendor of their offices without the merit of a proper blood line.

[Blue3]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

Are you asking if the Eastern Roman Empire was actually "byzantine", in its other definition?

[Storebought]

My question started off as a simple one: Was the government/polity of the Byzantine Empire as negative as the word 'byzantine' ("spiraling out-of-control bureaucracy," among other things) implies? It broadened as I was writing it to include the other connotations inherent in the word 'byzantine' -- sorry if that was not clear.

In a sense, the idea that the Empire was calamitously misgoverned by self-serving functionaries is not fair, since the Byzantine Empire inherited the same Roman army and Roman civil service apparatus that continues to be praised even today. That said, the Greeks did eventually make changes to these offices that rendered them unrecognizable even today.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well its the inevitable result of Classicism isn't it? Veneration of the Roman Empire as representing a lost golden age long ago That We Can Learn From Now (etc) gets a little bit tricky if we acknowledge that a large part of it continued to exist - and to operate along similar lines of logic - for close to a thousand years. The fact is that - rather than being the product of cultural decay - insane courtly politics, gross strategic incompetence and over-complex bureaucratic systems were not exactly unknown in the Roman Empire...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mind you, medieaval Iceland had insanely complex courtly politics and this was a land so materially poor that 'battles' largely involved ambushing the other side in ravines and pelting them with rocks.

[Georg Ebner]

The RomanRepublic was really far away from Byzantinism, was among the most admirable political societies (together with Sparta, Venice, England's GAINSBOROUGH-Gentry and Prussia's Army). The style of CAESAR - the most aristocratic one in WorldHistory - alone would be enough to prove that. (Sure, different to classics, classicISM made Hellas&Rome an abstract ideal - but this was still better than ignorance.)

[Storebought]

Well its the inevitable result of Classicism isn't it? Veneration of the Roman Empire as representing a lost golden age long ago That We Can Learn From Now (etc) gets a little bit tricky if we acknowledge that a large part of it continued to exist - and to operate along similar lines of logic - for close to a thousand years. The fact is that - rather than being the product of cultural decay - insane courtly politics, gross strategic incompetence and over-complex bureaucratic systems were not exactly unknown in the Roman Empire...

The bureaucracy simply was more prominent in Byzantium than in Rome (where, indeed, the Curia was notorious for its slow decision making), especially following the wholesale reorganizations of the army. They also assumed the responsibilities in the capital and the country of the old Roman trade guilds.

I've read from random Google sources that the bureaucracy existed with such tenacity because Hellenized Roman law formed the basis of the state's legal system [no barbarian customary law or trial-by-ordeal here] and that even the countryside had a monetary economy until the 1200s, both of which stalled (but not prevent) the entrenchment of a landed feudal aristocracy in government as in the west.

Another gift they gave the world was Byzantine Diplomacy, particularly the Office of Barbarian Affairs. That was a true innovation, not just a continuation of old systems, mostly because the Roman Empire didn't need diplomacy.

You could make the argument that the Classical Era died in the Byzantine Empire likewise as it had in the west, and that the Empire held onto its particles for too long (a great deal like the Qing Dynasty), but it's doubtful what improvements could have been made to it, since they believed the empire was the Manifestation of Heaven on Earth (a great deal like the Qing Dynasty).

[ingemann]

It was quite logical that western Christiandom look down on the East Roman after 1000. Byzantium was a empire slowly being eaten up, it was growing less and less important, while in the west, the existing kingdom was up and coming, and incredible stable by the standards of western Eurasia. As example after we saw a stabilisation of the East and West Frankish kingdoms into France and Germany/HRE these kingdom stayed very decentral but united through the middle ages, even through France suffered blody civil wars and Germany/HRE dealt with their own trouble, they was recognisable entities through the entire late medieval period.

At the same time the West was slowly drining the infidels out and bringing the fight to them, while the Byzantines was slowly being eaten up by them.

So is it so incredible that the Franks saw the moribond Byzantines as fundamental inferior and weak compared to their own rising kingdoms?

[Storebought]

It was quite logical that western Christiandom look down on the East Roman after 1000. Byzantium was a empire slowly being eaten up, it was growing less and less important, while in the west, the existing kingdom was up and coming, and incredible stable by the standards of western Eurasia. As example after we saw a stabilisation of the East and West Frankish kingdoms into France and Germany/HRE these kingdom stayed very decentral but united through the middle ages, even through France suffered blody civil wars and Germany/HRE dealt with their own trouble, they was recognisable entities through the entire late medieval period.

At the same time the West was slowly drining the infidels out and bringing the fight to them, while the Byzantines was slowly being eaten up by them.

So is it so incredible that the Franks saw the moribond Byzantines as fundamental inferior and weak compared to their own rising kingdoms?

The Franks (both French and the German branches) married off to Byzantine princesses whenever they had the chance, so the Empire still had prestige even after it lost territory to the Turks and wealth to the Italians.

The issue was that the Byzantine emperor, even after the 12th century, was still legally the Roman emperor, and the western chieftains and the Popes didn't want to acknowledge their subordination to him.

[ingemann]

It was quite logical that western Christiandom look down on the East Roman after 1000. Byzantium was a empire slowly being eaten up, it was growing less and less important, while in the west, the existing kingdom was up and coming, and incredible stable by the standards of western Eurasia. As example after we saw a stabilisation of the East and West Frankish kingdoms into France and Germany/HRE these kingdom stayed very decentral but united through the middle ages, even through France suffered blody civil wars and Germany/HRE dealt with their own trouble, they was recognisable entities through the entire late medieval period.

At the same time the West was slowly drining the infidels out and bringing the fight to them, while the Byzantines was slowly being eaten up by them.

So is it so incredible that the Franks saw the moribond Byzantines as fundamental inferior and weak compared to their own rising kingdoms?

The Franks (both French and the German branches) married off to Byzantine princesses whenever they had the chance, so the Empire still had prestige even after it lost territory to the Turks and wealth to the Italians.

Of course, but you can still look down on people, while recognise their titles as legitime, and the Catholics did recognise the Byzantines as heir to the East Roman empire which gave their titles great prestige.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really the Catholics saw the Holy Roman Emperor as heir to the West Roman crown, and as such they didn't think they owed any fealthy to the East Roman Emperor, who wasn't their overlord.