Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Istambul preserves the spirit of Constantinople, and part of the city is in Europe. Turks have not destroyed the byzantine legacy and they assume their history. Quite interesting to view all the mosaics in Santa Sophia, now a museum, and how conquerers covered all images with curtains.
I do believe that Turks, that came from middle Asia, treated better the legacy than "Latins" before the conquest. Latins (Catholics from Europe) wrecked the city several times during crusades.
Latins did not help Constantinople, and what's more, the technology that tumbled down the walls was Italian. Worth mentioning is the fight of military orders.
Renaissance was a Western phenomenon. Greeks fleeing Greece (especially after the taking of Mystras by Turks, Mystras being the last centre of Byzantine scholarship) have contributed but not in much degree.
The topic starter asked how Europeans view what happened to Byzantium (yes I know this term is an after construct) and the situation today, which I interpreted as describing a threat from some sort of eastern horde, scourging, pillaging and conquering Europe. The Ottomans of past represent the thousands of refugees as of today. As I said, if this interpretation is wrong, seeing as the topic starter really haven't described in detail what he means, I'm sorry.
Even though the final fall of Byzantium came from the hands of the turks, western Europe also had a big part to play so just pointing to a single reason is wrong.
And obviously we can't say that the renaissance only started because of greeks fleeing to Italy, a big reason was also the change from aristocratic rule to a more bourgeois, people were more free to express ideas etc.
But my point is that the fall of the Roman Empire might not have been just all bad. In many ways it helped fuel the development of western Europe.
I'm half greek, I even call Istanbul Constantinople still. But there are no more European or Greek casus belli on Turkey because of their conquest. And hopefully the refugees coming into Europe today, can fuel new ways of thinking to all us Europeans living here.
In regards to the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which survived for more than 1,000 years before being conquered by Ottoman Turks, how do most Europeans feel about the fact that it was once European? What exists in its place today, a good part of it in what's now Turkey, is certainly not European. How do most Europeans feel about this, and in particular, its corollaries with events of late?
When Constantinople fell, 1450 or so, it was perceived as a disaster by the christian world because it represented a threat to the mediterranean trade mainly....
But christian Europe did not do much.... and Venetia, that was the first economic power at that time, made very good business with the Turks.
Of course, the great empires readied themselves for war, in which everybody made a lot of money, mainly Venetia. Later came the Lepanto battle, Malta, etc..
1450 was viewed as a great failure of catholic Europe.....that later brought invasions that arrived almost to Wien..and that caused the Hapsburg to divert troops to fight protestants...and the division of the church provoked the 30 year world...etc, etc.
And hopefully the refugees coming into Europe today, can fuel new ways of thinking to all us Europeans living here.
Most of them being muslims, I doubt you gonna get some other kind of thinking than the kind that is written in quran. It is forbidden for a muslim to believe something that contradicts the quran. And quran is not very intelligent book ...
How do most Europeans feel about this [eastern half of the Roman Empire],
As mentioned, the average person (most), European or not, has no clue about the eastern Roman Empire from 476 to 1453. And there is a good reason for it, especially in western Europe and, by extension, the Americas.
As you can see, and I expected, this thread has turned into bantering (some historically accurate or close enough, some inaccurate or misleading) among very few with some interest in it.
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat
In regards to the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which survived for more than 1,000 years before being conquered by Ottoman Turks, how do most Europeans feel about the fact that it was once European ... and in particular, its corollaries with events of late? What exists in its place today, a good part of it in what's now Turkey, is certainly not European.
But this part of your question and statement appear not to make any sense.
What exactly is it that you want to know and, most of all, why?
You do realize that the Roman Empire at its core was first and foremost a Mediterranean phenomenon, geographically, socially, economically, politically? A world which has not existed for many, many, many centuries and whose major heirs in various parts and times were, besides the eastern Romans themselves, the Arabs and other Semitics, Venetians/Genoese, and eventually the Turks.
The territory that is (core) Europe today and over the past 500 years or so had relatively little to do with it and despite so-called nineteenth century European romantic fantasies, to project that onto it from a backwards looking perspective makes little sense ... unless ... unless ... unless ... as someone has alluded to.
Turks have not destroyed the byzantine legacy and they assume their history. Quite interesting to view all the mosaics in Santa Sophia, now a museum, and how conquerers covered all images with curtains.
Have you heard of theChurch of the Apostles, where Constantin the Great, city's founder, as well as most the Byzantine emperors were buried? Was one of the most magnificent churches of Christendom, second only to Hagia Sophia and was among the many city's artistic and historical treasures desecrated and destroyed by Turks. I hardly can make a difference between the destruction caused by Latins and the ones causded by Turks. The subject itself is silly, absurd, reminds me of the claim of some meat producers that they kill the cows, pigs and chickens in "humane" way. Like killing or destroying can ever be something nonviolent or nonabusive.
The fact was that it was a tremendous failure by the Latins that they had to pay until quite recently. I believe that Turks were more benevolent with the legacy and people. I remember studying the "Catalan Vengeance" (1305) when I was a kid perpetrated by Bernat de Rocafort.
As mentioned, the average person (most), European or not, has no clue about the eastern Roman Empire from 476 to 1453. And there is a good reason for it, especially in western Europe and, by extension, the Americas.
As you can see, and I expected, this thread has turned into bantering (some historically accurate or close enough, some inaccurate or misleading) among very few with some interest in it.
But this part of your question and statement appear not to make any sense.
What exactly is it that you want to know and, most of all, why?
You do realize that the Roman Empire at its core was first and foremost a Mediterranean phenomenon, geographically, socially, economically, politically? A world which has not existed for many, many, many centuries and whose major heirs in various parts and times were, besides the eastern Romans themselves, the Arabs and other Semitics, Venetians/Genoese, and eventually the Turks.
Sorry Bale, I am not sure what you are talking about here.
How the Balkan people (those of former Yugoslavia, or even Bulgarians) were not the "heirs" of Byzantium ahead of Arabs and Turks? Or why not even Russians?
I mean you know the reason behind Russia-Balkans connection and why Bismarck was warning his fellow politicians to not to meddle into Balkan affairs, right?
At least in the US, most people have no idea what Constantinople was or where it is located... They certainly don't know that Istanbul was Constantinople. To most people in the Americas Istanbul is probably somewhere in the middle east with Arabs riding camels through the streets.
99 per cent of Europeans do not feel anything about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
