On May 29, 1453, the capital of the Byzantine Empire fell to the Turks. Tuesday 29 May is one of the important dates world history. On this day it ceased to exist Byzantine Empire, created back in 395 as a result of the final division of the Roman Empire after the death of Emperor Theodosius I into western and eastern parts. With her death, a huge period of human history ended. In the lives of many peoples of Europe, Asia and North Africa, a radical change occurred due to the establishment of Turkish rule and the creation Ottoman Empire.
It is clear that the fall of Constantinople is not a clear line between the two eras. The Turks established themselves in Europe a century before the fall of the great capital. And by the time of its fall, the Byzantine Empire was already a fragment of its former greatness - the emperor’s power extended only to Constantinople with its suburbs and part of the territory of Greece with the islands. Byzantium of the 13th-15th centuries can only be called an empire conditionally. At the same time, Constantinople was a symbol ancient empire, was considered the “Second Rome”.
Background of the fall
In the 13th century, one of the Turkic tribes - the Kays - led by Ertogrul Bey, forced out of their nomadic camps in the Turkmen steppes, migrated westward and stopped in Asia Minor. The tribe assisted the Sultan of the largest Turkish state (founded by the Seljuk Turks) - the Rum (Konya) Sultanate - Alaeddin Kay-Kubad in his fight against the Byzantine Empire. For this, the Sultan gave Ertogrul land in the region of Bithynia as fief. The son of the leader Ertogrul - Osman I (1281-1326), despite his constantly growing power, recognized his dependence on Konya. Only in 1299 did he accept the title of Sultan and soon subjugated the entire western part of Asia Minor, winning a series of victories over the Byzantines. By the name of Sultan Osman, his subjects began to be called Ottoman Turks, or Ottomans (Ottomans). In addition to wars with the Byzantines, the Ottomans fought for the subjugation of other Muslim possessions - by 1487, the Ottoman Turks established their power over all Muslim possessions of the Asia Minor Peninsula.
The Muslim clergy, including local dervish orders, played a major role in strengthening the power of Osman and his successors. The clergy not only played a significant role in the creation of a new great power, but justified the policy of expansion as a “struggle for faith.” In 1326, the largest trading city of Bursa, the most important point of transit caravan trade between the West and the East, was captured by the Ottoman Turks. Then Nicaea and Nicomedia fell. The sultans distributed the lands captured from the Byzantines to the nobility and distinguished warriors as timars - conditional possessions received for serving (estates). Gradually, the Timar system became the basis of the socio-economic and military-administrative structure of the Ottoman state. Under Sultan Orhan I (ruled from 1326 to 1359) and his son Murad I (ruled from 1359 to 1389), important military reforms were carried out: the irregular cavalry was reorganized - cavalry and infantry troops convened from Turk farmers were created. Warriors of the cavalry and infantry troops were farmers in peacetime, receiving benefits, and during the war they were obliged to join the army. In addition, the army was supplemented by a militia of peasants of the Christian faith and a corps of Janissaries. The Janissaries initially took captured Christian youths who were forced to convert to Islam, and from the first half of the 15th century - from the sons of Christian subjects of the Ottoman Sultan (in the form of a special tax). The Sipahis (a kind of nobles of the Ottoman Empire who received income from the Timars) and the Janissaries became the core of the army Ottoman sultans. In addition, units of gunners, gunsmiths and other units were created in the army. As a result, a powerful power arose on the borders of Byzantium, which claimed dominance in the region.
It must be said that the Byzantine Empire and the Balkan states themselves accelerated their fall. During this period, there was a sharp struggle between Byzantium, Genoa, Venice and the Balkan states. Often the fighting parties sought to gain military support from the Ottomans. Naturally, this greatly facilitated the expansion of the Ottoman power. The Ottomans received information about routes, possible crossings, fortifications, strong and weaknesses enemy troops, the internal situation, etc. Christians themselves helped to cross the straits to Europe.
The Ottoman Turks achieved great success under Sultan Murad II (ruled 1421-1444 and 1446-1451). Under him, the Turks recovered from the heavy defeat inflicted by Tamerlane in the Battle of Angora in 1402. In many ways, it was this defeat that delayed the death of Constantinople for half a century. The Sultan suppressed all the uprisings of the Muslim rulers. In June 1422, Murad besieged Constantinople, but was unable to take it. The lack of a fleet and powerful artillery had an effect. In 1430, the large city of Thessalonica in northern Greece was captured; it belonged to the Venetians. Murad II won a number of important victories on the Balkan Peninsula, significantly expanding the possessions of his power. So in October 1448 the battle took place on the Kosovo Field. In this battle, the Ottoman army opposed the combined forces of Hungary and Wallachia under the command of the Hungarian general Janos Hunyadi. The fierce three-day battle ended with the complete victory of the Ottomans, and decided the fate of the Balkan peoples - for several centuries they found themselves under the rule of the Turks. After this battle, the Crusaders suffered a final defeat and made no further serious attempts to recapture the Balkan Peninsula from the Ottoman Empire. The fate of Constantinople was decided, the Turks had the opportunity to solve the problem of capturing the ancient city. Byzantium itself no longer posed a great threat to the Turks, but a coalition of Christian countries, relying on Constantinople, could cause significant harm. The city was located practically in the middle of the Ottoman possessions, between Europe and Asia. The task of capturing Constantinople was decided by Sultan Mehmed II.
Byzantium. By the 15th century, the Byzantine power had lost most of its possessions. The entire 14th century was a period of political failure. For several decades it seemed that Serbia would be able to capture Constantinople. Various internal strife were a constant source of civil wars. Thus, the Byzantine emperor John V Palaiologos (who reigned from 1341 to 1391) was overthrown from the throne three times: by his father-in-law, his son and then his grandson. In 1347, the Black Death epidemic swept through, killing at least a third of the population of Byzantium. The Turks crossed to Europe, and taking advantage of the troubles of Byzantium and the Balkan countries, by the end of the century they reached the Danube. As a result, Constantinople was surrounded on almost all sides. In 1357, the Turks captured Gallipoli, and in 1361, Adrianople, which became the center of Turkish possessions on the Balkan Peninsula. In 1368, Nissa (the suburban seat of the Byzantine emperors) submitted to Sultan Murad I, and the Ottomans were already under the walls of Constantinople.
In addition, there was the problem of the struggle between supporters and opponents of the union with the Catholic Church. For many Byzantine politicians it was obvious that without the help of the West, the empire could not survive. Back in 1274, at the Council of Lyon, the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII promised the pope to seek reconciliation of the churches for political and economic reasons. True, his son Emperor Andronikos II convened a council of the Eastern Church, which rejected the decisions of the Lyon Council. Then John Palaiologos went to Rome, where he solemnly accepted the faith according to the Latin rite, but did not receive help from the West. Supporters of union with Rome were mainly politicians or belonged to the intellectual elite. The lower clergy were the open enemies of the union. John VIII Palaiologos (Byzantine emperor in 1425-1448) believed that Constantinople could only be saved with the help of the West, so he tried to conclude a union with the Roman Church as quickly as possible. In 1437, together with the patriarch and a delegation of Orthodox bishops, the Byzantine emperor went to Italy and spent more than two years there, first in Ferrara, and then at the Ecumenical Council in Florence. At these meetings, both sides often reached an impasse and were ready to stop negotiations. But John forbade his bishops to leave the council until a compromise decision was made. In the end, the Orthodox delegation was forced to concede to the Catholics on almost all major issues. On July 6, 1439, the Union of Florence was adopted, and the Eastern churches were reunited with the Latin. True, the union turned out to be fragile; after a few years, many Orthodox hierarchs present at the Council began to openly deny their agreement with the union or say that the decisions of the Council were caused by bribery and threats from Catholics. As a result, the union was rejected by most Eastern churches. The majority of the clergy and people did not accept this union. In 1444, the Pope was able to organize crusade against the Turks (the main force were the Hungarians), but at Varna the crusaders suffered a crushing defeat.
Disputes about the union took place against the backdrop of the country's economic decline. Constantinople at the end of the 14th century was a sad city, a city of decline and destruction. The loss of Anatolia deprived the capital of the empire of almost all agricultural land. The population of Constantinople, which in the 12th century numbered up to 1 million people (together with the suburbs), fell to 100 thousand and continued to decline - by the time of the fall there were approximately 50 thousand people in the city. The suburb on the Asian shore of the Bosphorus was captured by the Turks. The suburb of Pera (Galata) on the other side of the Golden Horn was a colony of Genoa. The city itself, surrounded by a 14-mile wall, lost a number of neighborhoods. In fact, the city turned into several separate settlements, separated by vegetable gardens, orchards, abandoned parks, and ruins of buildings. Many had their own walls and fences. The most populous villages were located along the banks of the Golden Horn. The richest quarter adjacent to the bay belonged to the Venetians. Nearby were streets where Westerners lived - Florentines, Anconans, Ragusians, Catalans and Jews. But the piers and bazaars were still full of traders from Italian cities, Slavic and Muslim lands. Pilgrims, mainly from Rus', arrived in the city every year.
Last years before the fall of Constantinople, preparation for war
The last emperor of Byzantium was Constantine XI Palaiologos (who ruled in 1449-1453). Before becoming emperor, he was the despot of Morea, a Greek province of Byzantium. Konstantin had a sound mind, was a good warrior and administrator. He had the gift of arousing the love and respect of his subjects; he was greeted in the capital with great joy. During the short years of his reign, he prepared Constantinople for a siege, sought help and alliance in the West, and tried to calm the turmoil caused by the union with the Roman Church. He appointed Luka Notaras as his first minister and commander-in-chief of the fleet.
Sultan Mehmed II received the throne in 1451. He was a purposeful, energetic, intelligent person. Although it was initially believed that this was not a young man brimming with talents, this impression was formed from the first attempt to rule in 1444-1446, when his father Murad II (he transferred the throne to his son in order to distance himself from state affairs) had to return to the throne to resolve emerging issues. problems. This calmed the European rulers; they all had their own problems. Already in the winter of 1451-1452. Sultan Mehmed ordered the construction of a fortress to begin at the narrowest point of the Bosphorus Strait, thereby cutting off Constantinople from the Black Sea. The Byzantines were confused - this was the first step towards a siege. An embassy was sent with a reminder of the oath of the Sultan, who promised to preserve the territorial integrity of Byzantium. The embassy left no answer. Constantine sent envoys with gifts and asked not to touch the Greek villages located on the Bosporus. The Sultan ignored this mission too. In June, a third embassy was sent - this time the Greeks were arrested and then beheaded. In fact, it was a declaration of war.
By the end of August 1452, the Bogaz-Kesen fortress (“cutting the strait” or “cutting the throat”) was built. Powerful guns were installed in the fortress and a ban was announced on passing the Bosphorus without inspection. Two Venetian ships were driven off and the third was sunk. The crew was beheaded and the captain was impaled - this dispelled all illusions about Mehmed's intentions. The actions of the Ottomans caused concern not only in Constantinople. The Venetians owned an entire quarter in the Byzantine capital; they had significant privileges and benefits from trade. It was clear that after the fall of Constantinople the Turks would not stop; Venice’s possessions in Greece and the Aegean Sea were under attack. The problem was that the Venetians were bogged down in a costly war in Lombardy. An alliance with Genoa was impossible; relations with Rome were strained. And I didn’t want to spoil relations with the Turks - the Venetians also carried out profitable trade in Ottoman ports. Venice allowed Constantine to recruit soldiers and sailors in Crete. In general, Venice remained neutral during this war.
Genoa found itself in approximately the same situation. The fate of Pera and the Black Sea colonies caused concern. The Genoese, like the Venetians, showed flexibility. The government appealed to the Christian world to send assistance to Constantinople, but they themselves did not provide such support. Private citizens were given the right to act as they wished. The administrations of Pera and the island of Chios were instructed to follow such a policy towards the Turks as they considered most appropriate in the current situation.
The Ragusans, residents of the city of Ragus (Dubrovnik), as well as the Venetians, recently received confirmation of their privileges in Constantinople from the Byzantine emperor. But the Dubrovnik Republic did not want to put its trade in Ottoman ports at risk. In addition, the city-state had a small fleet and did not want to risk it unless there was a broad coalition of Christian states.
Pope Nicholas V (chapter catholic church from 1447 to 1455), having received a letter from Constantine agreeing to accept the union, appealed in vain to various sovereigns for help. There was no proper response to these calls. Only in October 1452, the papal legate to the emperor Isidore brought with him 200 archers hired in Naples. The problem of union with Rome again caused controversy and unrest in Constantinople. December 12, 1452 in the church of St. Sophia served a solemn liturgy in the presence of the emperor and the entire court. It mentioned the names of the Pope and Patriarch and officially proclaimed the provisions of the Union of Florence. Most of the townspeople accepted this news with sullen passivity. Many hoped that if the city stood, it would be possible to reject the union. But having paid this price for help, the Byzantine elite miscalculated - ships with soldiers from Western states did not arrive to help the dying empire.
At the end of January 1453, the issue of war was finally resolved. Turkish troops in Europe were ordered to attack Byzantine cities in Thrace. The cities on the Black Sea surrendered without a fight and escaped pogrom. Some cities on the coast of the Sea of Marmara tried to defend themselves and were destroyed. Part of the army invaded the Peloponnese and attacked the brothers of Emperor Constantine so that they could not come to the aid of the capital. The Sultan took into account the fact that a number of previous attempts to take Constantinople (by his predecessors) failed due to the lack of a fleet. The Byzantines had the opportunity to transport reinforcements and supplies by sea. In March, all the ships at the Turks' disposal are brought to Gallipoli. Some of the ships were new, built within the last few months. The Turkish fleet had 6 triremes (two-masted sailing and rowing ships, one oar was held by three oarsmen), 10 biremes (a single-masted ship, where there were two rowers on one oar), 15 galleys, about 75 fustas (light, fast ships), 20 parandarii (heavy transport barges) and a lot of small sailing boats, lifeboats The head of the Turkish fleet was Suleiman Baltoglu. The rowers and sailors were prisoners, criminals, slaves and some volunteers. At the end of March, the Turkish fleet passed through the Dardanelles into the Sea of Marmara, causing horror among the Greeks and Italians. This was another blow to the Byzantine elite; they did not expect that the Turks would prepare such significant naval forces and be able to blockade the city from the sea.
At the same time, an army was being prepared in Thrace. All winter, gunsmiths tirelessly worked on various types of weapons, engineers created battering and stone-throwing machines. A powerful strike force of approximately 100 thousand people was assembled. Of these, 80 thousand were regular troops - cavalry and infantry, Janissaries (12 thousand). There were approximately 20-25 thousand irregular troops - militias, bashi-bazouks (irregular cavalry, the “crazy” did not receive pay and “rewarded” themselves with looting), rear units. The Sultan also paid great attention to artillery - the Hungarian master Urban cast several powerful cannons capable of sinking ships (with the help of one of them a Venetian ship was sunk) and destroying powerful fortifications. The largest of them was pulled by 60 oxen, and a team of several hundred people was assigned to it. The gun fired cannonballs weighing approximately 1,200 pounds (about 500 kg). During March, the Sultan's huge army began to gradually move towards the Bosphorus. On April 5, Mehmed II himself arrived under the walls of Constantinople. Morale the army was high, everyone believed in success and hoped for rich booty.
The people in Constantinople were depressed. The huge Turkish fleet in the Sea of Marmara and strong enemy artillery only increased anxiety. People recalled predictions about the fall of the empire and the coming of the Antichrist. But it cannot be said that the threat deprived all people of the will to resist. All winter, men and women, encouraged by the emperor, worked to clear ditches and strengthen the walls. A fund was created for unforeseen expenses - the emperor, churches, monasteries and private individuals made investments in it. It should be noted that the problem was not the availability of money, but the lack required quantity people, weapons (especially firearms), food problem. All weapons were collected in one place so that, if necessary, they could be distributed to the most threatened areas.
There was no hope for external help. Only a few private individuals provided support for Byzantium. Thus, the Venetian colony in Constantinople offered its assistance to the emperor. Two captains of Venetian ships returning from the Black Sea, Gabriele Trevisano and Alviso Diedo, took an oath to participate in the fight. In total, the fleet defending Constantinople consisted of 26 ships: 10 of them belonged to the Byzantines themselves, 5 to the Venetians, 5 to the Genoese, 3 to the Cretans, 1 came from Catalonia, 1 from Ancona and 1 from Provence. Several noble Genoese arrived to fight for the Christian faith. For example, a volunteer from Genoa, Giovanni Giustiniani Longo, brought 700 soldiers with him. Giustiniani was known as an experienced military man, so he was appointed by the emperor to command the defense of the land walls. In total, the Byzantine emperor, not including his allies, had about 5-7 thousand soldiers. It should be noted that part of the city’s population left Constantinople before the siege began. Some of the Genoese - the colony of Pera and the Venetians - remained neutral. On the night of February 26, seven ships - 1 from Venice and 6 from Crete - left the Golden Horn, taking away 700 Italians.
To be continued…
"The Death of an Empire. Byzantine lesson"- a journalistic film by the abbot of the Moscow Sretensky Monastery, Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov). The premiere took place on the state channel “Russia” on January 30, 2008. The presenter, Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov), gives his version of the collapse of the Byzantine Empire in the first person.
Ctrl Enter
Noticed osh Y bku Select text and click Ctrl+Enter
We have a new national idea in Russia. Forgotten is Peter, who forcibly dragged Russia to Europe. The communists who built the most advanced industrial system have been forgotten. We, Russia, are no longer the despicable, decaying Europe. We are the heirs of the spiritually rich Byzantium. The sovereign-spiritual conference “Moscow - the Third Rome” is being held in Moscow with pomp, Putin’s confessor is showing on the Rossiya TV channel the film “Byzantium: The Death of an Empire” (about the fact that 1000 years ago the damned West was plotting against the stronghold of spirituality), and the President Vladimir Putin states in his message to the Senate that “ sacred meaning» Korsun, in which, as is known, his namesake adopted the sacredness and spirituality of Constantinople by plundering the city and raping the ruler’s daughter in front of her parents.
I have a question: do we really want to be like Byzantium?
Then, if possible, for what exactly?
Because the country “Byzantium” never existed. The country that existed was called the Roman Empire, or the Roman Empire. Its enemies called it “Byzantium,” and this very name is a blatant rewriting of the past undertaken by the propagandists of Charlemagne and Pope Leo III. The same “falsification of history” that actually happens in history.
The causes and consequences of this falsification should be discussed in more detail - this is important.
There is no Byzantine Empire. There is an Empire
At the end of antiquity, the word "empire" was a proper noun. This was not a designation of a method of government (there were no Persian, Chinese, etc. “empires” at that time), there was only one empire - the Roman one, it is the only one, just as sturgeon is of the same freshness.
It remained such in the eyes of Constantinople - and in this sense, it is significant that historians are confused about the date of the emergence of “Byzantium”. This is a unique case when a state seems to exist, but when it was formed is unclear.
Thus, the outstanding German Byzantinist George Ostrogorsky traced the beginning of “Byzantium” to the reforms of Diocletian, which followed the crisis of Roman imperial power in the 3rd century. “All the most important features of the establishment of Diocletian and Constantine dominated the early Byzantine period,” writes Ostrogorsky. At the same time, of course, Diocletian ruled the Roman, and not the “Byzantine” empire.
Other historians, such as Lord John Norwich, consider the date of the emergence of “Byzantium” to be 330, when Constantine the Great moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople, which he rebuilt. However, moving the capital is not the founding of an empire. For example, in 402 Ravenna became the capital of the Western Roman Empire - does this mean that the Ravenna Empire existed from 402?
Another popular date is 395, when Emperor Theodosius divided the empire between his sons Arcadius and Honorius. But the tradition of co-ruling two or even more emperors again goes back to Diocletian. More than once, two or more emperors sat on the throne in Constantinople: there could be many emperors, but there was always one empire.
The same thing - 476, which a thousand years later was proclaimed the end of the Western Roman Empire. In this year, the German Odoacer not only removed the Emperor of the West, Romulus Augustulus, but also abolished the title itself, sending the imperial insignia to Constantinople.
No one paid attention to this event because it did not mean anything. First, the Western emperors at that time were a long line of puppets in the hands of barbarian shoguns. Secondly, Odoacer did not abolish any empire: on the contrary, in exchange for insignia, he asked for the title of patrician in Constantinople, because if he ruled his barbarians as a military leader, then he could only rule the local population as a Roman official.
Moreover, Odoacer did not rule for long: the emperor soon entered into an alliance with the king of the Goths, Theodoric, and he captured Rome. Theodoric faced the same problem as Odoacer. The title "king" at that time was more of a military title, like "commander-in-chief". You can be the commander-in-chief of the army, but you cannot be the “commander-in-chief of Moscow.” While ruling the Goths as king, Theodoric de jure ruled the local population as the emperor's viceroy, and Theodoric's coins bore the head of Emperor Zeno.
The Roman Empire understandably took the de facto loss of Rome hard, and in 536 Emperor Justinian destroyed the kingdom of the Goths and returned Rome to the empire. This Roman emperor who codified Roman law in the famous Justinian Code, he was definitely not aware that, it turns out, he was ruling some kind of Byzantium, especially since he ruled the empire in Latin. On Greek language the empire passed only in the 7th century, under Emperor Heraclius.
Constantinople's complete dominance over Italy was short-lived: 30 years later the Lombards poured into Italy, but the empire retained control over a good half of the territory, including Ravenna, Calabria, Campania, Liguria and Sicily. Rome was also under the control of the emperor: in 653, the emperor arrested Pope Martin I, and in 662, Emperor Constans even moved the capital from Constantinople to the West for five years.
All this time, neither the Roman emperors nor the barbarians who captured the western provinces doubted that the Roman Empire still existed; that an empire is a proper name, and there can only be one empire, and if the barbarians minted a coin (which they rarely did), then they minted it in the name of the empire, and if they killed a predecessor (which they did much more often than minted a coin), then they sent to the emperor in Constantinople for the title of patrician, ruling the local non-barbarian population as authorized representatives of the empire.
The situation changed only in 800, when Charlemagne sought a legal way to formalize his power over the giant conglomerate of lands he had conquered. In the Roman Empire at that time, Empress Irina sat on the throne, which, from the point of view of the Franks, was illegal: imperium femininum absurdum est. And then Charlemagne crowned himself as Roman Emperor, announcing that the empire had passed from the Romans to the Franks - to the amazement and indignation of the empire itself.
This is approximately as if Putin declared himself President of the United States on the grounds that the elections in the United States seemed illegal to him, and therefore, the imperium over the United States passed from Obama to Putin, and in order to somehow distinguish the new United States from the old ones, he commanded the old United States its lawyers call it “Washingtonia.”
A little before the coronation of Charles, a fantastic forgery called “The Gift of Constantine” was born, which - in corrupted Latin using feudal terminology - reported that Emperor Constantine, having been cured of leprosy, in the 4th century transferred secular power over both Rome and the Pope to the Pope. over the entire Western Empire: a circumstance, as we see, completely unknown to either Odoacer, Theodoric, or Justinian.
So, this is important: “Byzantium” was not formed either in 330, or in 395, or in 476. It was formed in 800 in the minds of the propagandists of Charlemagne, and this name was the same blatant falsification of history as the obviously false Donation of Constantine. That is why Gibbon, in his great History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, wrote the history of all Roman lands, including medieval Rome and Constantinople.
In Constantinople, until the very last day, they never forgot for a second that there can be many emperors, but there can only be one empire. In 968, Otto's ambassador, Liutprand, was furious that his overlord was being called "rex", the king, and as early as 1166 Manuel Comnenus hoped to restore the unity of the empire through Pope Alexander, who was to proclaim him sole emperor.
There is no doubt that the character of the Roman Empire changed over the centuries. But the same can be said about any state. England in the time of William the Conqueror is completely different from England in the time of Henry VIII. Nevertheless, we call this state "England" because there is an unbroken historical continuity , a smooth function showing how a state got from point A to point B. The Roman Empire is exactly the same: there is an unbroken historical continuity showing how the empire of Diocletian turned into the empire of Michael Palaiologos.
And now, in fact, the most main question. It is clear why "Byzantium" is a common term in Europe. This is a nickname invented by the Franks.
But why should ours, in Freudian fashion, declare themselves the successors not of Caesar and Augustus, but of the gnawed “Byzantium”?
The answer, from my point of view, is very simple. “Byzantium” itself looks like a respectable state. It turns out that a certain “Western Roman Empire” collapsed under the blows of the barbarians, but the Eastern one, “Byzantium,” lasted at least another thousand years. If we understand that the Orthodox state with its center in Constantinople was the full-fledged and only Roman empire, then exactly according to Gibbon happens: the decay and contraction of the empire, the loss of provinces one after another, the transformation of the great pagan culture into a dying state ruled by tyrants, priests and eunuchs .
The futility of Byzantium
What is the most amazing thing about this state? The fact that, having an unbroken historical continuity from the Greeks and Romans, speaking the same language in which Plato and Aristotle wrote, using the magnificent heritage of Roman law, being a direct continuation of the Roman Empire - it did not create, by and large, anything th.
Europe had an excuse: in the 6th-7th centuries it plunged into the wildest barbarism, but the reason for this was barbarian conquests. The Roman Empire was not subject to them. It was the successor to the two greatest civilizations of antiquity, but if Eratosthenes knew that the Earth was a ball, and knew the diameter of this ball, then on the map of Cosmas Indicoplova the Earth is depicted as a rectangle with paradise at the top.
We still read “River Backwaters,” written in China in the 14th century. We still read Heike Monogatari, which takes place in the 12th century. We read Beowulf and the Song of the Nibelungs, Wolfram von Eschenbach and Gregory of Tours, we still read Herodotus, Plato and Aristotle, who wrote in the same language spoken by the Roman Empire a thousand years before its formation.
But from the Byzantine heritage, if you are not a specialist, there is nothing to read. No great novels, no great poets, no great historians. If someone writes in Byzantium, then it is someone terribly high-ranking, and even better, a person from the reigning house: Anna Komnena or, in extreme cases, Michael Psellus. Everyone else is afraid to have their own opinion.
Think about it: a civilization existed for several hundred years, which was the successor to the two most developed civilizations of antiquity, and left behind nothing but architecture - books for the illiterate, the lives of saints, and fruitless religious disputes.
Screensaver of the film “The Death of an Empire. Byzantine lesson" by Father Tikhon (Shevkunov), shown on Russian TV
This monstrous decline in the intelligence of society, the sum of knowledge, philosophy, human dignity did not occur as a result of conquest, pestilence or environmental disaster. It occurred as a result of internal reasons, the list of which reads like a recipe for the perfect disaster: a recipe for what the state should never do under any circumstances.
Illegitimacy
Firstly, the Roman Empire never developed a mechanism for a legitimate change of power.
Constantine the Great executed his nephews - Licinian and Crispus; then he killed his wife. He left power over the empire to his three sons: Constantine, Constantius and Constant. The first act of the new Caesars was to kill two of their half-uncles along with their three sons. Then they killed both of Constantine's sons-in-law. Then one of the brothers, Constans, killed the other, Constantine, then Constans was killed by the usurper Magnentius; then the surviving Constantius killed Magnentius.
Emperor Justin, Justinian's successor, was crazy. His wife Sophia convinced him to appoint Sophia's lover Tiberius as his successor. As soon as he became emperor, Tiberius put Sophia behind bars. Tiberius appointed Mauritius as his successor, marrying him to his daughter. The Emperor of Mauritius was executed by Phocas, having previously executed his four sons before his eyes; at the same time they executed everyone who could be considered loyal to the emperor. Phocas was executed by Heraclius; After his death, Heraclius's widow, his niece Martina, first of all sent her eldest son Heraclius to the next world, intending to secure the throne for her son Heraklion. It didn’t help: Martina’s tongue was cut off, Heraklion’s nose was cut off.
The new emperor, Constans, was killed on a soapbox in Syracuse. It fell to his grandson, Justinian II, to fight the Arab invasion. He did this in an original way: after about 20 thousand Slavic soldiers, crushed by the taxes of the empire, went over to the side of the Arabs, Justinian ordered the slaughter of the rest of the Slavic population in Bithynia. Justinian was overthrown by Leontius, Leontius by Tiberius. Due to the well-known softening of morals, Leontius did not execute Justinian, but only cut off his nose - it was believed that the emperor could not rule without a nose. Justinian refuted this strange prejudice by returning to the throne and executing everyone and everything. Tiberius's brother, Heraclius, the best commander of the empire, was hanged with his officers along the walls of Constantinople; in Ravenna, high-ranking officials were gathered for a feast in honor of the emperor and killed to hell; in Chersonesus, seven of the noblest citizens were roasted alive. After the death of Justinian, his successor, the six-year-old boy Tiberius, rushed to seek refuge in the church: he held on to the altar with one hand and held a piece of the Holy Cross with the other as he was slaughtered like a sheep.
This mutual massacre continued until the very last moment of the empire’s existence, depriving any power of legitimacy and making, among other things, marriages with Western ruling houses almost impossible, because each usurper was usually either already married, or was in a hurry to marry the daughter, sister or mother of the one he had killed emperor in order to give himself at least some semblance of legitimate rule.
The assault on Constantinople by the troops of Mehmed II.
To people with a superficial knowledge of history, it may seem that such bloody leapfrogs in the Middle Ages were characteristic of any country. Not at all. By the 11th century, the Franks and Normans had quickly developed surprisingly clear mechanisms of legitimacy of power, which led to the fact that the removal, for example, from the throne of the English king was an emergency that occurred as a result of the consensus of the nobility and the extreme inability of the above-mentioned king to rule.
Here's a simple example: how many English kings lost their thrones while underage? Answer: one (Edward V). How many Byzantine minor emperors lost their throne? Answer: everything. Semi-exceptions include Constantine Porphyrogenitus (who retained his life and empty title because the usurper Roman Lecapinus ruled in his name and married his daughter to him) and John V Palaiologos (whose regent, John Cantacuzene, was eventually forced to rebel and proclaim himself co-emperor).
If the Franks and Normans gradually worked out a clear mechanism of inheritance, then in the empire of the Romans anyone could always ascend to the throne, and very often the throne was transferred not by the army (then at least you would have an emperor who knew how to fight), but also by the maddened Constantinople mob, united by the wildest fanaticism with a complete lack of any outlook and foresight. This happened during the accession of Andronicus Komnenos (1182), when the mob massacred all the Latins in Constantinople, which, however, did not stop the same mob exactly three years later from hanging the deposed emperor by his feet and pouring a bucket of boiling water on his head.
Do we want to imitate?
Lack of a functioning bureaucracy
The chronic lack of legitimacy worked both ways. It allowed any rogue (even an illiterate drinking companion of the emperor like Vasily I) to take the throne. But it also prompted the emperor to fear any rival, periodically leading to total massacres and not allowing him to build what any state needs: a stable set of rules and a governance mechanism.
Such a set of rules existed in China, it can be expressed in two words: the examination system. A meritocratic system in which officials knew what their duty was. This concept of duty more than once or twice prompted Chinese officials to submit reports on corruption and abuses (for which they were cut off), and yes, the son of the first minister easily made a career, but at the same time he received an appropriate education, and if the level of his education and Decency did not correspond to the position held; this was perceived as a deviation from the norm.
England also created a similar system, it can be expressed in two words: the honor of an aristocrat. The Plantagenets ruled England in a complex symbiosis with the military aristocracy and parliament, and feudal Europe gave modern world one of his main legacies: the concept of a person’s honor, his inner dignity (this honor was originally the honor of an aristocrat), distinct from his position, condition and the degree of mercy of the ruler towards him.
The Roman Empire did not develop any rules. Its aristocracy was servile, arrogant and narrow-minded. She unlearned Greek and Roman culture, and never learned Frankish and Norman warfare. Not being able to build, for fear of usurpation, a normal state apparatus, the emperors relied on those who did not pose an immediate threat to power: that is, first of all, on the eunuchs and the church, which led to the dominance of that very famous Byzantine “spirituality”, about which is slightly lower.
Quasi-socialism
Despite the absence of a normal state apparatus, the empire suffered from severe overregulation, the origins of which again went back to the era of the Dominant and Diocletian’s Edict “On Fair Prices.” Suffice it to say that silk production in the empire was a state monopoly.
The catastrophic overregulation of the economy, combined with an ineffective state apparatus, gave rise to what is always born in such cases: monstrous corruption, and on a scale that had geopolitical consequences and threatened the very existence of the empire. Thus, the decision of Emperor Leo VI to transfer the monopoly on trade with the Bulgarians to the father of his mistress Stylian Zautze ended in a humiliating defeat in the war with the Bulgarians and the payment of heavy tribute to them.
There was one area in which anti-market regulation did not work: by unfortunate coincidence, it was exactly the area in which it was needed. The very existence of the empire depended on the existence of a class of small free farmers who owned plots in exchange for military service, and it was this class that disappeared due to the absorption of their lands by the dinata (“strong”). The most prominent of the emperors, for example Roman Lekapin, understood the problem and tried to fight it: but this was impossible, because the officials responsible for the return of illegally alienated lands were precisely the Dinates themselves.
Spirituality
About this wonderful state - with all its emperors slaughtering each other, with Stylian Zautza, with eunuchs and tyrants, with the Dinates squeezing land from ordinary peasants - we are told that it was very “spiritual”.
Oh yeah. It was a mouthful of spirituality, if by it we mean the desire of emperors and mobs to slaughter heretics, instead of fighting enemies who threatened the very existence of the empire.
On the eve of the emergence of Islam, the empire extremely successfully began to eradicate the Monophysites, as a result of which, when the Arabs appeared, they en masse went over to their side. In the 850s, Empress Theodora launched a persecution of the Paulicians: 100 thousand people were killed, the rest went over to the side of the caliphate. Emperor Alexei Komnenos, instead of leading a Crusade that could have returned the lands to the empire without which it could not survive, found himself a more spiritual occupation: he began exterminating the Bogomils and the same Paulicians, that is, the tax base of the empire.
The spiritual Michael Rangave spent huge sums on monasteries, while the army rebelled without money and the Avars massacred his subjects by the thousands. The iconoclast Constantine V Copronymus successfully combined religious fanaticism with an ineradicable passion for pretty and painted young men.
“Spirituality” was intended to replace the vacuum arising in connection with the chronic illegitimacy of the government and the chronic incapacity of the state apparatus. The strife between Monophysites, Monothelites, iconoclasts, etc., the gigantic wealth given to monasteries, the categorical reluctance of the church to share it even in the face of an enemy invasion, the genocide of its own subjects on religious grounds - all this “spirituality”, in the most difficult military situation, predetermined the collapse empires.
The spiritual Byzantines managed to forget that the Earth is a sphere, but in 1182 a maddened crowd, in another attack seeking spirituality, massacred all the Latins in Constantinople: babies, tiny girls, decrepit old men.
Is this what we want to imitate?
Collapse
And, finally, the very last, most striking circumstance regarding the object of our enthusiastic imitation.
The Roman Empire disappeared.
This is an amazing, almost unprecedented case of the disappearance of a state that was located not somewhere out there, on the outskirts, but in the middle of the world, in living contact with all existing cultures. From all of them it could borrow, from all of them it could learn - and did not borrow, and did not learn anything, but only lost.
Ancient Greece has been gone for two thousand years, but we still, inventing wired communication at a distance, call it “telephone”, inventing heavier-than-air devices, we invent “aerodrome”. We remember the myths about Perseus and Hercules, we remember the stories of Gaius Julius Caesar and Caligula, you don’t have to be an Englishman to remember William the Conqueror, or an American to know about George Washington. IN last decades our horizons have expanded: every bookstore in the West sells three translations of The Art of War, and even those who have not read The Three Kingdoms may have seen the John Woo film The Battle of Red Cliffs.
Hand on heart: how many of you remember the name of at least one Emperor of Constantinople after the 6th century? Hand on heart: if you remember the names of Nikephoros Phocas or Vasily the Bulgarian Slayer, then does the description of their lives (“Phocas executed Mauritius, Heraclius executed Phocas”) represent for you even a fraction of the interest that the description of the life of Edward III or Frederick Barbarossa represents?
The Roman Empire disappeared: it collapsed with amazing ease in 1204, when another infantile tyrant - the son of the overthrown Isaac Angel (Isaac killed Andronicus, Alexei blinded Isaac) - ran to the crusaders for help and promised them money that he had no intention of paying, and finally - in 1453. Usually, states disappeared in this way, isolated for a long time, faced with an unknown and lethal civilizational strain: for example, the Inca Empire fell under the blows of 160 soldiers of Pizarro.
But for a state, abundant, large, ancient, located in the center of the civilized world, theoretically capable of borrowing, to turn out to be so inert, vain and closed-minded, as not to learn, at least from a military point of view, anything, so as not to adopt the advantages of a heavily armed knight, a long bows, cannons, so as to forget even one’s own Greek fire - this is a case that has no analogues in history. Even technology laggards China and Japan were not conquered. Even fragmented India resisted the Europeans for several centuries.
The Roman Empire collapsed completely - and into oblivion. A unique example of the degradation of a once free and prosperous civilization that left nothing behind.
Do our rulers really want us to suffer the fate of a power centered in Constantinople?
So that we stew in our own juices, contemptuously bending our lips and considering ourselves the navel of the earth, while the world around us uncontrollably rushes forward, so that we consider not proof of our own superiority high tech, and what about mechanical birds singing at the throne of the emperor?
This is Freud in its purest form. That, wanting to imitate, our rulers want to imitate not the Roman Empire, but the disappeared, bureaucratic, lost prestige, knowledge and power, unable to even defend the right to self-name - “Byzantium”.
The high spirituality of the Roman empire, as is known, ended with the fact that even on the eve of its death, the fanatical crowd and the clergy who filled the power vacuum did not want to count on the help of the West. Islam is better than the West, they believed.
And according to their spirituality they were rewarded.
In the first centuries of our era, wild warlike Huns moved into Europe. Moving west, the Huns set in motion other peoples who roamed the steppes. Among them were the ancestors of the Bulgarians, whom medieval chroniclers called Burgars.
European chroniclers, who wrote about the most important events of their time, considered the Huns to be their worst enemies. And no wonder.
The Huns - the architects of the new Europe
The leader of the Huns, Attila, inflicted a defeat on the Western Roman Empire, from which it was never able to recover and soon ceased to exist. Arriving from the east, the Huns settled firmly on the banks of the Danube and reached the heart of future France. In their army they conquered Europe and other peoples, related and unrelated to the Huns themselves. Among these peoples there were nomadic tribes, about which some chroniclers wrote that they came from the Huns, while others argued that these nomads had nothing to do with the Huns. Be that as it may, in Byzantium, neighboring Rome, these barbarians were considered the most merciless and worst enemies. 
The Lombard historian Paul the Deacon was the first to report on these terrible barbarians. According to him, the accomplices of the Huns killed the Lombard king Agelmund and took his daughter captive. Actually, the murder of the king was started for the sake of kidnapping the unfortunate girl. The king's heir hoped to meet the enemy in a fair fight, but no way! As soon as he saw the army of the young king, the enemy turned his horses and fled. The royal army could not compete with the barbarians, raised in the saddle from an early age... This sad event was followed by many others. And after the fall of Attila’s power, the nomads settled on the shores of the Black Sea. And if the power of Rome was undermined by the invasion of Attila, then the power of Byzantium was undermined day after day by the vile raids of his “minions.”
Moreover, at first the relations between Byzantium and the Bulgarian leaders were wonderful. The cunning politicians of Byzantium thought of using other nomads in the fight against some nomads. When relations with the Goths worsened, Byzantium entered into an alliance with the leaders of the Bulgarians. However, the Goths turned out to be much better warriors. In the first battle they completely defeated the Byzantine defenders, and in the second battle the Bulgarian leader Buzan also died. Obviously, the complete inability of “their” barbarians to resist the “foreign” barbarians outraged the Byzantines, and the Bulgarians did not receive any promised gifts or privileges. But literally immediately after the defeat from the Goths, they themselves became enemies of Byzantium. The Byzantine emperors even had to build a wall, which was supposed to protect the empire from barbarian raids. This camp stretched from Silimvria to Derkos, that is, from the Marmara Sea to the Black Sea, and it was not for nothing that it received the name “long,” that is, long.
But the “long wall” was not a hindrance for the Bulgarians. The Bulgarians firmly established themselves on the banks of the Danube, from where it was very convenient for them to raid Constantinople. Several times they completely defeated the Byzantine troops and captured Byzantine commanders. True, the Byzantines had little understanding of the ethnicity of their enemies. They called the barbarians, with whom they either entered into an alliance or entered into mortal combat, Huns. But these were Bulgarians. And to be even more precise - kutrigurs.
Utigurs and Kutrigurs
Chroniclers who wrote about the people that modern historians identify as Proto-Bulgarians did not distinguish them from the Huns. For the Byzantines, everyone who fought alongside the Huns or even settled the lands left by the Huns became Huns themselves. Confusion was also caused by the fact that the Bulgarians were divided into two branches. One concentrated along the banks of the Danube, where the Bulgarian kingdom later arose, and in the Northern Black Sea region, and the other roamed the steppes from the Sea of Azov to the Caucasus, and in the Volga region. Modern historians believe that the Proto-Bulgarians actually included several related peoples - the Savirs, Onogurs, and Ufas. Syrian chroniclers of that time were more erudite than European ones. They knew very well what peoples were roaming the steppes beyond the Derbent Gate, where the army of the Huns, Onogurs, Ugrians, Savirs, Burgars, Kutrigurs, Avars, Khazars, as well as Kulas, Bagrasiks and Abels, passed through, about which nothing is known today. 
By the 6th century, the Proto-Bulgarians were no longer confused with the Huns. The Gothic historian Jordanes calls these Bulgarians a tribe sent “for our sins.” And Procopius of Caesarea tells the following legend about the split among the Proto-Bulgarians. One of the Hun leaders who settled in the country of Eulisia, in the Black Sea steppes, had two sons - Utigur and Ku-trigur. After the death of the ruler, they divided their father's lands among themselves. The tribes subject to Utigur began to call themselves Utigurs, and those subject to Kutrigur - Kutrigurs. Procopius considered both of them to be Huns. They had the same culture, the same customs, the same language. The Kutrigurs migrated to the west and became a headache for Constantinople. And the Goths, Tetraxites and Utigurs occupied the lands east of the Don. This division most likely occurred at the end of the 5th - beginning of the 6th century.
In the middle of the 6th century, the Kutrigurs entered into a military alliance with the Gepids and attacked Byzantium. The Kutrigur army in Pannonia numbered about 12 thousand people, and it was led by the brave and skillful commander Hinialon. The Kutrigurs began to seize Byzantine lands, so Emperor Justinian also had to look for allies. His choice fell on the closest relatives of the Kutrigurs - the Utigurs. Justinian managed to convince the Utigurs that the Kutrigurs did not behave like relatives: while capturing rich booty, they did not want to share with their fellow tribesmen. The Utigurs succumbed to the deception and entered into an alliance with the emperor. They suddenly attacked the Kutrigurs and ravaged their lands in the Black Sea region. The Kutrigurs gathered a new army and tried to resist their brothers, but there were too few of them, the main military forces were in distant Pannonia. The Utrigurs defeated the enemy, captured women and children and took them into slavery. Justinian did not fail to convey the bad news to the leader of the Kutrigurs, Hinialon. The emperor's advice was simple: leave Pannonia and return home. Moreover, he promised to settle the Kutrigurs who had lost their homes if they would continue to defend the borders of his empire. So the Kutrigurs settled in Thrace. The Utigurs did not like this very much, who immediately sent ambassadors to Constantinople and began to bargain for privileges the same as those of the Kutrigurs. This was all the more relevant since the Kutrigurs continually raided Byzantium from the territory of Byzantium itself! Sent on military campaigns with the Byzantine army, they immediately began to attack those who organized these campaigns. And the emperor had to use the best remedy again and again against the disobedient Kutrigurs - their relatives and enemies of the Utigurs. 
Heritage of Great Bulgaria
At the end of the century, the Kutrigurs preferred the Avar Khaganate, of which they became part, to the Byzantine emperor. And then in 632, the Bulgar Khan Kubrat, a kutrigur by origin, managed to unite his fellow tribesmen into a state called Great Bulgaria. This state included not only the Kutrigurs, but also the Utigurs, Onogurs and other related peoples. The lands of Great Bulgaria stretched across the southern steppes from the Don to the Caucasus. But Great Bulgaria did not last long. After the death of Khan Kubrat, the lands of Great Bulgaria went to his five sons, who did not want to share power with each other. The Khazars neighbors took advantage of this, and in 671 Great Bulgaria ceased to exist.
However, the peoples mentioned in Russian chronicles originated from Kubrat’s five children. From Batbayan came the so-called Black Bulgarians, with whom Byzantium had to fight and against whom the legendary Prince Igor went on campaigns. Kotrag, who settled on the Volga and Kama, founded Volga Bulgaria. From these Volga tribes such peoples as the Tatars and Chuvashs were later formed. Kuber went to Pannonia, and from there to Macedonia. His fellow tribesmen merged with the local Slavic population and assimilated. Alzek took his tribe to Italy, where he settled on the lands of the Lombard people who had adopted him. But the middle son of Khan Kubrat, Asparukh, is more famous. He settled on the Danube and in 650 created the Bulgarian kingdom. Slavs and Thracians already lived here. They mixed with Asparukh's fellow tribesmen. This is how it arose new people- Bulgarians. And there were no more Utigurs or Kutrigurs left on earth...
Mikhail Romashko
1. Features of the development of Byzantium. Unlike the Western Roman Empire, Byzantium not only withstood the onslaught of the barbarians, but also existed for more than a thousand years. It included rich and cultural areas: the Balkan Peninsula with adjacent islands, part of Transcaucasia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt. Since ancient times, agriculture and cattle breeding have developed here. Thus, it was a Euro-Asian (Eurasian) state with a population very diverse in origin, appearance and customs.
In Byzantium, including in the territory of Egypt and the Middle East, lively, crowded cities remained: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. Crafts such as the production of glassware, silk fabrics, fine jewelry, and papyrus were developed here.
Constantinople, located on the shores of the Bosphorus Strait, stood at the intersection of two important trade routes: land - from Europe to Asia and sea - from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea. Byzantine merchants grew rich in trade with the Northern Black Sea region, where they had their own colony cities, Iran, India, and China. They were well known in Western Europe, where they brought expensive oriental goods.
2. The power of the emperor. Unlike the countries of Western Europe, Byzantium maintained a single state with despotic imperial power. Everyone had to be in awe of the emperor, glorifying him in poetry and songs. The emperor's exit from the palace, accompanied by a brilliant retinue and large guards, turned into a magnificent celebration. He performed in silk robes embroidered with gold and pearls, with a crown on his head, a gold chain around his neck and a scepter in his hand.
The emperor had enormous power. His power was inherited. He was the supreme judge, appointed military leaders and senior officials, and received foreign ambassadors. The emperor ruled the country with the help of many officials. They tried with all their might to gain influence at court. The cases of petitioners were resolved through bribes or personal connections.
Byzantium could defend its borders from barbarians and even wage wars of conquest. At the disposal of a rich treasury, the emperor maintained a large mercenary army and a strong navy. But there were periods when a major military leader overthrew the emperor himself and became the sovereign himself.
3. Justinian and his reforms. The empire especially expanded its borders during the reign of Justinian (527-565). Intelligent, energetic, well-educated, Justinian skillfully selected and directed his assistants. Beneath his outward approachability and courtesy hid a merciless and insidious tyrant. According to the historian Procopius, he could, without showing anger, “in a quiet, even voice, give the order to kill tens of thousands of innocent people.” Justinian was afraid of attempts on his life, and therefore easily believed denunciations and was quick to take reprisals.
Justinian's main rule was: "one state, one law, one religion." The emperor, wanting to enlist the support of the church, granted it lands and valuable gifts, and built many churches and monasteries. His reign began with unprecedented persecution of pagans, Jews and apostates from the teachings of the church. Their rights were limited, they were dismissed from service, and sentenced to death. The famous school in Athens, a major center of pagan culture, was closed.
To introduce uniform laws for the entire empire, the emperor created a commission of the best lawyers. In a short time, she collected the laws of the Roman emperors, excerpts from the works of outstanding Roman jurists with an explanation of these laws, new laws introduced by Justinian himself, and compiled a brief guide to the use of the laws. These works were published under the general title “Code of Civil Law”. This set of laws preserved Roman law for subsequent generations. It was studied by lawyers in the Middle Ages and Modern times, drawing up laws for their states.
4. Justinian's wars. Justinian made an attempt to restore the Roman Empire within its former borders.
Taking advantage of the discord in the Vandal kingdom, the emperor sent an army on 500 ships to conquer North Africa. The Byzantines quickly defeated the Vandals and occupied the capital of the kingdom, Carthage.
Justinian then proceeded to conquer the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy. His army occupied Sicily, southern Italy and later captured Rome. Another army, advancing from the Balkan Peninsula, entered the capital of the Ostrogoths, Ravenna. The Kingdom of the Ostrogoths fell.
But the oppression of officials and the robberies of soldiers caused uprisings of local residents in North Africa and Italy. Justinian was forced to send new armies to suppress uprisings in the conquered countries. It took 15 years of intense struggle to completely subjugate North Africa, and in Italy it took about 20 years.
Taking advantage of the internecine struggle for the throne in the Visigoth kingdom, Justinian's army conquered the southwestern part of Spain.
To protect the borders of the empire, Justinian built fortresses on the outskirts, placed garrisons in them, and laid roads to the borders. Destroyed cities were restored everywhere, water pipelines, hippodromes, and theaters were built.
But the population of Byzantium itself was ruined by unbearable taxes. According to the historian, “the people fled in large crowds to the barbarians just to escape from their native land.” Uprisings broke out everywhere, which Justinian brutally suppressed.
In the east, Byzantium had to fight long wars with Iran, even cede part of its territory to Iran and pay it tribute. Byzantium did not have a strong knightly army, as in Western Europe, and began to suffer defeats in wars with its neighbors. Soon after the death of Justinian, Byzantium lost almost all the territories it had conquered in the West. The Lombards occupied most of Italy, and the Visigoths took back their former possessions in Spain.
5. Invasion of the Slavs and Arabs. From the beginning of the 6th century, the Slavs attacked Byzantium. Their troops even approached Constantinople. In the wars with Byzantium, the Slavs gained combat experience, learned to fight in formation and storm fortresses. From invasions they moved on to settling the territory of the empire: first they occupied the north of the Balkan Peninsula, then penetrated into Macedonia and Greece. The Slavs turned into subjects of the empire: they began to pay taxes to the treasury and serve in the imperial army.
The Arabs attacked Byzantium from the south in the 7th century. They captured Palestine, Syria and Egypt, and by the end of the century - all of North Africa. Since the time of Justinian, the territory of the empire has shrunk almost threefold. Byzantium retained only Asia Minor, the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula and some areas in Italy.
6. The fight against external enemies in the VIII-IX centuries. To successfully repel enemy attacks, Byzantium introduced new order recruitment into the army: instead of mercenaries, soldiers from peasants who received plots of land for their service were taken into the army. In peacetime, they cultivated the land, and when the war began, they went on a campaign with their weapons and horses.
In the 8th century there was a turning point in the wars of Byzantium with the Arabs. The Byzantines themselves began to invade the possessions of the Arabs in Syria and Armenia and later conquered from the Arabs part of Asia Minor, regions in Syria and Transcaucasia, the islands of Cyprus and Crete.
From the commanders of the troops in Byzantium, nobility gradually developed in the provinces. She built fortresses in her domains and created her own detachments of servants and dependent people. Often the nobility raised rebellions in the provinces and waged wars against the emperor.
Byzantine culture
At the beginning of the Middle Ages, Byzantium did not experience such a cultural decline as Western Europe. She became the heiress of cultural achievements ancient world and countries of the East.
1. Development of education. In the 7th-8th centuries, when Byzantium's possessions declined, Greek became the official language of the empire. The state needed well-trained officials. They had to competently draw up laws, decrees, contracts, wills, conduct correspondence and court cases, respond to petitioners, and copy documents. Often educated people achieved high positions, and with them came power and wealth.
Not only in the capital, but also in small towns and large villages in primary schools children could study ordinary people able to pay for training. Therefore, even among peasants and artisans there were literate people.
Along with church schools, public and private schools were opened in cities. They taught reading, writing, arithmetic and church singing. In addition to the Bible and other religious books, the schools studied the works of ancient scientists, the poems of Homer, the tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles, the works of Byzantine scientists and writers; solved quite complex arithmetic problems.
In the 9th century in Constantinople, at the imperial palace, it was opened graduate School. It taught religion, mythology, history, geography, and literature.
2. Scientific knowledge. The Byzantines preserved ancient knowledge of mathematics and used it to calculate tax amounts, in astronomy, and in construction. They also widely used the inventions and writings of great Arab scientists - doctors, philosophers and others. Through the Greeks, Western Europe learned about these works. In Byzantium itself there were many scientists and creative people. Leo the Mathematician (9th century) invented sound signaling for transmitting messages over a distance, automatic devices in the throne room of the imperial palace, driven by water - they were supposed to capture the imagination of foreign ambassadors.
Medical textbooks were compiled. To teach the art of medicine, in the 11th century, a medical school (the first in Europe) was created at the hospital of one of the monasteries in Constantinople.
The development of crafts and medicine gave impetus to the study of chemistry; Ancient recipes for making glass, paints, and medicines were preserved. “Greek fire” was invented - an incendiary mixture of oil and tar that cannot be extinguished with water. With the help of “Greek fire,” the Byzantines won many victories in battles at sea and on land.
The Byzantines accumulated a lot of knowledge in geography. They knew how to draw maps and city plans. Merchants and travelers wrote descriptions different countries and peoples.
History developed especially successfully in Byzantium. Vivid, interesting works by historians were created on the basis of documents, eyewitness accounts, and personal observations.
3. Architecture. The Christian religion changed the purpose and structure of the temple. In an ancient Greek temple, a statue of the god was placed inside, and religious ceremonies were held outside in the square. That's why appearance They tried to make the temple especially elegant. Christians gathered for common prayer inside the church, and the architects cared about the beauty of not only the external, but also its internal premises.
The Christian church's plan was divided into three parts: the vestibule - a room at the western, main entrance; nave (ship in French) - the elongated main part of the temple where believers gathered for prayer; an altar where only clergy could enter. With its apses - semicircular vaulted niches that protruded outwards, the altar faced the east, where, according to Christian ideas, the center of the earth Jerusalem is located with Mount Golgotha - the site of the crucifixion of Christ. In large temples, rows of columns separated the wider and higher main nave from the side naves, of which there could be two or four.
A remarkable work of Byzantine architecture was the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Justinian did not skimp on expenses: he wanted to make this temple the main and largest church of the entire Christian world. The temple was built by 10 thousand people over five years. Its construction was supervised by famous architects and decorated by the best artisans.
The Church of Hagia Sophia was called “a miracle of miracles” and was sung in verse. Inside it amazed with its size and beauty. A giant dome with a diameter of 31 m seems to grow from two half-domes; each of them rests, in turn, on three small semi-domes. Along the base, the dome is surrounded by a wreath of 40 windows. It seems that the dome, like the vault of heaven, floats in the air.
In the X-XI centuries, instead of an elongated rectangular building The cross-domed church was established. In plan, it looked like a cross with a dome in the middle, mounted on a round elevation - a drum. There were many churches, and they became smaller in size: the inhabitants of a city block, a village, or a monastery gathered in them. The temple looked lighter, directed upward. To decorate its exterior, they used multi-colored stone, brick patterns, and alternated layers of red brick and white mortar.
4. Painting. In Byzantium, earlier than in Western Europe, the walls of temples and palaces began to be decorated with mosaics - images made of multi-colored stones or pieces of colored opaque glass - smalt. Smalt
reinforced with different inclinations in wet plaster. The mosaic, reflecting the light, flashed, sparkled, flickered with bright multi-colored colors. Later, the walls began to be decorated with frescoes - paintings painted with water paints on wet plaster.
There was a canon in the design of temples - strict rules for the depiction and placement of biblical scenes. The temple was a model of the world. The more important the image was, the higher it was placed in the temple.
The eyes and thoughts of those entering the church turned primarily to the dome: it was represented as the vault of heaven - the abode of the deity. Therefore, a mosaic or fresco depicting Christ surrounded by angels was often placed in the dome. From the dome the gaze moved to the upper part of the wall above the altar, where the figure of the Mother of God reminded us of the connection between God and man. In 4-pillar churches, on sails - triangles formed by large arches, frescoes with images of the four authors of the Gospels were often placed: Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Moving around the church, the believer, admiring the beauty of its decoration, seemed to be making a journey through the Holy Land - Palestine. On the upper parts of the walls, artists unfolded episodes from the earthly life of Christ in the order as they are described in the Gospels. Below were depicted those whose activities are connected with Christ: prophets (messengers of God) who predicted his coming; apostles - his disciples and followers; martyrs who suffered for the sake of faith; saints who spread the teachings of Christ; kings as his earthly governors. In the western part of the temple, pictures of hell or the Last Judgment after the second coming of Christ were often placed above the entrance.
In the depiction of faces, attention was drawn to the expression of emotional experiences: huge eyes, a large forehead, thin lips, an elongated oval face - everything spoke of high thoughts, spirituality, purity, holiness. The figures were placed on a gold or blue background. They appear flat and frozen, and their facial expressions are solemn and concentrated. The flat image was created specifically for the church: wherever a person went, he everywhere met the faces of saints turned to him.
To understand the reasons for the fall of the Byzantine Empire, a brief excursion into history should be taken. In 395, after the death of the ruler Theodosius I and the collapse of the great Roman state, its western part ceased to exist. In its place the Byzantine Empire was formed. Before the collapse of Rome, its western half was called “Greek”, since the bulk of its population were Hellenes.
general information
For almost ten centuries, Byzantium was the historical and cultural follower of Ancient Rome. This state included incredibly rich lands and a large number of cities located in the territories of present-day Egypt, Asia Minor, and Greece. Despite the corrupt management system, unbearably high taxes, a slave-owning economy and constant court intrigues, the economy of Byzantium was for a long time the most powerful in Europe.
The state traded with all former western Roman possessions and with India. Even after the conquest of some of its territories by the Arabs, the Byzantine Empire remained very rich. However financial expenses were great, and the well-being of the country aroused great envy among its neighbors. But the decline in trade, which was caused by the privileges granted to Italian merchants, (the capital of the state) by the crusaders, as well as the onslaught of the Turks, caused the final weakening of financial condition and the state as a whole.
Description
In this article we will tell you the reasons for the fall of Byzantium, what were the prerequisites for the collapse of one of the richest and powerful empires our civilization. None other ancient state did not exist for so long - 1120 years. The fabulous wealth of the elite, the beauty and exquisite architecture of the capital and large cities - all this took place against the backdrop of the deep barbarism of the peoples of Europe in which they lived during the heyday of this country.
The Byzantine Empire lasted until the mid-sixteenth century. This powerful nation had a huge cultural heritage. During its heyday, it controlled vast territories in Europe, Africa and Asia. Byzantium occupied the Balkan Peninsula, almost all of Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria and Egypt. Her possessions also covered parts of Armenia and Mesopotamia. Few people know that she also owned possessions in the Caucasus and the Crimean Peninsula.
Story
The total area of the Byzantine Empire was more than one million square kilometers with a population of approximately 35 million people. The state was so large that its emperors in the Christian world were considered the supreme overlords. Legends were told about the unimaginable wealth and splendor of this state. The peak of Byzantine art came during the reign of Justinian. It was a golden age.
The Byzantine state included many large cities in which a literate population lived. Due to its excellent location, Byzantium was considered the largest trading and maritime power. From it there were routes even to the most remote places at that time. The Byzantines traded with India, China, and Ceylon, Ethiopia, Britain, Scandinavia. Therefore, the gold solid - currency unit this empire - became an international currency.
And although Byzantium strengthened after the Crusades, after the massacre of the Latins there was a deterioration in relations with the West. This was the reason that the fourth crusade was already directed against herself. In 1204, its capital, Constantinople, was captured. As a result, Byzantium broke up into several states, including the Latin and Achaean principalities created in the territories captured by the crusaders, the Trebizond, Nicaean and Epirus empires, which remained under the control of the Greeks. The Latins began to suppress Hellenistic culture, and the dominance of Italian traders prevented the revival of cities. It is impossible to briefly name the reasons for the fall of the Byzantine Empire. They are numerous. The collapse of this once flourishing state was a huge blow for the entire Orthodox world.
Economic reasons for the fall of the Byzantine Empire
They can be presented point by point as follows. It was economic instability that played a decisive role in the weakening and subsequent death of this richest state.
A divided society
There were not only economic, but also other internal reasons for the fall of the Byzantine Empire. The ruling feudal and church circles of this once flourishing state failed not only to lead their people, but also to find with them mutual language. Moreover, the government proved unable to restore unity even around itself. Therefore, at the moment when the consolidation of all was required to repel the external enemy internal forces state, in Byzantium, enmity and schism, mutual suspicion and distrust reigned everywhere. The attempts of the last emperor, who (according to the chroniclers) was known as a brave and honest man, to rely on the residents of the capital turned out to be late.
The presence of strong external enemies
Byzantium fell thanks not only to internal, but also external reasons. This was greatly facilitated by the selfish policy of the papacy and many Western European states, which left her without help at the time of threat from the Turks. The lack of goodwill of her long-time enemies, of whom there were many among Catholic prelates and sovereigns, also played a significant role. All of them dreamed not of saving the huge empire, but only of seizing its rich inheritance. It can be called main reason the death of the Byzantine Empire. The lack of strong and reliable allies contributed greatly to the collapse of this country. Alliances with the Slavic states located on the Balkan Peninsula were sporadic and fragile. This occurred both due to a lack of mutual trust on both sides and due to internal disagreements.
Fall of the Byzantine Empire
The causes and consequences of the collapse of this once mighty civilized country are numerous. It was greatly weakened by clashes with the Seljuks. There were also religious reasons fall of the Byzantine Empire. Having converted to Orthodoxy, she lost the support of the Pope. Byzantium could have disappeared from the face of the earth even earlier, even during the reign of the Seljuk Sultan Bayezid. However, Timur (Central Asian Emir) prevented this. He defeated the enemy troops and took Bayazid prisoner.
After the fall of such a fairly powerful Armenian crusader state as Cilicia, it was the turn of Byzantium. Many people dreamed of capturing it, from the bloodthirsty Ottomans to the Egyptian Mamelukes. But they were all afraid to go against the Turkish Sultan. Not a single European state started a war against him for the interests of Christianity.
Consequences
After the establishment of Turkish rule over Byzantium, a persistent and lengthy struggle of the Slavic and other Balkan peoples against the foreign yoke began. In many countries of the South-Eastern Empire, a decline in economic and social development followed, which led to a long regression in the development of productive forces. Although the Ottomans strengthened the economic position of some of the feudal lords who collaborated with the conquerors, expanding the internal market for them, nevertheless, the peoples of the Balkans experienced severe oppression, including religious oppression. The establishment of conquerors in Byzantine territory turned it into a springboard for Turkish aggression directed against Central and Eastern Europe, as well as against the Middle East.