Literally every time I hear the word Constantinople, I can not help to sing to myself the lyrics from the famous They Must Be Giants Song, entitled Istanbul. (It is actually a song. I suggest YouTubing it if you haven't heard it.
Continuing on though, I will actually be discussing Constantinople and its influence by leader Constantine over the Christian Religion.
To start off with, as Jamie a few other of my peers have mentioned, Rome fell in about 476. It was about this time that the Byzantine empire was on the rise. (Constantinople was its central city). Constantinople's leader, Constantine, had previously been a Roman emperor, and had also converted over to Christianity. Due to his success as an emperor, he also managed to influence not only Constantinople's ideals towards Christianity, he also brought the ideas to the places he managed to conquer during his time. This can be noted in the Strayer Text (Ways of the World: A Brief Global History, Vol 1: to 1500 by Robert W. Strayer, if you wanted to look it up)
Strayer says the emperor in Constantinople claimed to "Govern all creation as God's worldly representative" and that he was "peer of the Apostles" he also mentions how the peoples attempted to "imitate the awesome grandeur of what they thought was God's heavenly court". Because of the ornate decorations and churches Constantinople had erected, a Russian leader, Price Vladmir, sought Christianity out as a way to unify his people, while linking to other communities and people.
The Byzantine empire was a diverse culture, pulling in parts from Roman and Greek culture, and had a few different religions in it. Ultimately, Constantine and the city of Constantinople played a large role in the spread of Christianity.
Showing posts with label Constantinople. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constantinople. Show all posts
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
East Vs. West - The First Reformation
Rome's mysterious sister lay in Constantinople.
For a very long time the two were one, the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Church, separated by political and geographic differences. Yet, over time, relations between the two bodies began to grow sour. Various minor disputes over church doctrine, administrative structure, even practices wedged themselves into a further divide. However, the biggest dividing factor was the fall of Rome in the West. With this decisive action perpetrated by "barbarians," "Rome" continued, yet in two different factions. The Goths took over, seeing themselves as continuing the Roman tradition, while at the same time, in the east, Byzantium continued the Roman Empire - in their thinking at least.
This is a link that gives a great overview of the Eastern Empire and the feelings held by it. From here we see the "last nail in the coffin" so to speak, as Justinian (the Eastern Emperor) had wanted to reclaim the West, as he saw himself as ruler over the entirety of Rome. However, soon the Vatican claimed the West. His subsequent military failures only proved to strengthen the Vatican's claim as these attempts drained the East of much needed resources and all but destroyed Italy; because of limited resources, and the barbarian nuisance, the East could not hold onto the West. After the death of Justinian, all hope of reconquering the West were lost and would remain so.
For a very long time the two were one, the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Church, separated by political and geographic differences. Yet, over time, relations between the two bodies began to grow sour. Various minor disputes over church doctrine, administrative structure, even practices wedged themselves into a further divide. However, the biggest dividing factor was the fall of Rome in the West. With this decisive action perpetrated by "barbarians," "Rome" continued, yet in two different factions. The Goths took over, seeing themselves as continuing the Roman tradition, while at the same time, in the east, Byzantium continued the Roman Empire - in their thinking at least.
This is a link that gives a great overview of the Eastern Empire and the feelings held by it. From here we see the "last nail in the coffin" so to speak, as Justinian (the Eastern Emperor) had wanted to reclaim the West, as he saw himself as ruler over the entirety of Rome. However, soon the Vatican claimed the West. His subsequent military failures only proved to strengthen the Vatican's claim as these attempts drained the East of much needed resources and all but destroyed Italy; because of limited resources, and the barbarian nuisance, the East could not hold onto the West. After the death of Justinian, all hope of reconquering the West were lost and would remain so.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Byzantines: An Often Overlooked Empire
Looking at the course of history, one can easily argue that the Roman Empire truly did fall in 476 BCE. From some of my previous posts, it is clear that many historians would say that the Roman Empire itself fell in 476 and that was the end of it. However, there are many more who would say that the Roman Empire continued to hang on to its last legs until 1453, when Constantinople finally was seized. But why would there be those distinct differences? Why would historians frequently disagree with the actual date? Should it not be clean cut when an empire as powerful as the Roman Empire fell?
Some of the main reasons for the differences in the date are simply because while the main Roman Empire did fall, some part of it still hung on. The idea of the actual Roman Empire did not last past 476. It merged into something new: The Byzantine Empire. Some historians would argue that it was still part of the Roman Empire, as Constantinople was the capital of the eastern half of the Empire. But when examining the Byzantine Empire, it is clear that there are many differences between the two cultures. For reference, here is a pretty detailed outline that expands from just before the fall of the western half of Rome, to the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453.
This website gives a pretty detailed explanation of Byzantium, which later became the western capital of the Roman Empire. It identifies the fact that the Byzantine Empire was different than the Roman Empire, as it was more commercialized and a more urban center than the Roman Empire had been. One of the key phrases that stood out when reading this website is the fact that: "Not everyone understood or spoke Latin." Latin was the accepted language of the Roman Empire, whereas with the Byzantine Empire, Latin was not so widely spoken. Byzantium was a place that was filled with economic wealth and success. It was known throughout Europe and it was a trading center of the world, especially due to its geographical location. Here there is a map depicting where Constantinople existed. This is the same city that was once Byzantine and that essentially became Byzantine again after the decline of the Roman Empire.
I suppose the main question that I leave any readers with is this: would it be safe to consider the Byzantine Empire a different empire completely? There were many cultural, religious, economical and societal differences between the Byzantine Empire and the once proud Roman Empire that dominated the Byzantine capital for centuries. Did the Byzantine Empire continue to exist even after the power of Rome left its city walls?
Some of the main reasons for the differences in the date are simply because while the main Roman Empire did fall, some part of it still hung on. The idea of the actual Roman Empire did not last past 476. It merged into something new: The Byzantine Empire. Some historians would argue that it was still part of the Roman Empire, as Constantinople was the capital of the eastern half of the Empire. But when examining the Byzantine Empire, it is clear that there are many differences between the two cultures. For reference, here is a pretty detailed outline that expands from just before the fall of the western half of Rome, to the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453.
This website gives a pretty detailed explanation of Byzantium, which later became the western capital of the Roman Empire. It identifies the fact that the Byzantine Empire was different than the Roman Empire, as it was more commercialized and a more urban center than the Roman Empire had been. One of the key phrases that stood out when reading this website is the fact that: "Not everyone understood or spoke Latin." Latin was the accepted language of the Roman Empire, whereas with the Byzantine Empire, Latin was not so widely spoken. Byzantium was a place that was filled with economic wealth and success. It was known throughout Europe and it was a trading center of the world, especially due to its geographical location. Here there is a map depicting where Constantinople existed. This is the same city that was once Byzantine and that essentially became Byzantine again after the decline of the Roman Empire.
I suppose the main question that I leave any readers with is this: would it be safe to consider the Byzantine Empire a different empire completely? There were many cultural, religious, economical and societal differences between the Byzantine Empire and the once proud Roman Empire that dominated the Byzantine capital for centuries. Did the Byzantine Empire continue to exist even after the power of Rome left its city walls?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)