Why are the Byzantines so absent in western pop culture?

[ukrkoz]

I have seen some very interesting non - Western documentaries on Byzantine. It is my firm understanding that, as media and science is owned by The Elite, that Byzantine had too much good to speak off, to be widely mentioned to the crowd. It may leave unpleasant impression - if truthfully presented - when comparing Byzantine and modern West, with least losing. Rome, on the other hand, especially its decadence times, fits well into media pulp fed to the crowd. Blood, violence and sex.

[ki0eh]

Originally Posted by ukrkoz

I have seen some very interesting non - Western documentaries on Byzantine. It is my firm understanding that, as media and science is owned by The Elite, that Byzantine had too much good to speak off, to be widely mentioned to the crowd. It may leave unpleasant impression - if truthfully presented - when comparing Byzantine and modern West, with least losing. Rome, on the other hand, especially its decadence times, fits well into media pulp fed to the crowd. Blood, violence and sex.

The year 532 in Constantinople was no slouch by these standards. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ire-113325928/

[KenFresno]

Originally Posted by aca1

I think they get less mention because Western Europe entered the historical age at that time. My feeling is that, at least in America, there is an attempt to make white history look better by always tracing back to the most advanced civilizations instead of the actual ancestors of the people in question. Therefore we start off in the Middle East with the fertile crescent, Egypt and Phoenicia. When Classical Greece arrives, history can move into Europe, then further west with Rome. After Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, then after the Normans, England, and finally a few centuries later the USA. It would be much more accurate for most of us (White Americans that is) to start with the Celtic, Briton, and Germanic tribes, but they are not so civilized or interesting.

Nail on the head. Western European history is written as if it the successor of Greece and Rome's civilization and imperial greatness. Even though culturally Rome and Greece were far more akin to the civilizations of the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa then any direct descendants of modern Western Europeans be it Celts or Germanic tribes. Romans worshiped Eastern Gods, there most prosperous colonies were all in the East or North Africa, even some of their Emperors were from the East. Its no surprise that when they decided to split the empire they took the Eastern half.

In spite of the fact that Latin loanwords are found in the Arabic language and that the Eastern civilizations, Byzantines and the various Caliphates were the ones who preserved ancient Greek and Roman writings. They don't get credited as the successors to Ancient Greek and Rome civilization. Mostly for the reason you listed below:

Originally Posted by aca1

there is an attempt to make white history look better by always tracing back to the most advanced civilizations instead of the actual ancestors of the people in question

[bale002]

Why are the Byzantines so absent in western pop culture?

Would Cain want to remember Abel?

[farinello]

What agbout the Byzantinette Sisters?