Posted on 06/01/2008 2:05:56 PM PDT by shrinkermd
MOSCOW -- The Byzantine Empire fell in 1453. But you wouldn't know it in Russia, where Vladimir V. Putin has been behaving as though the 15th century never ended, as though he is the direct descendant of the Byzantine kings and Moscow remains the "Third Rome" it declared itself to be in 1472.
Just like the leaders of Byzantium centuries ago, Putin and his supporters talk about Russia today as if it were a divinely ordained power, destined to withstand the decay and destruction of the West. The "double eagle" emblem, originally adopted in Russia about the time of the Byzantine demise, was brought back after 1991 as a state symbol, once again meant to signify the country's dream of domination over Europe and Asia.
Under Boris Yeltsin, the double eagle got little play, but in the Putin years its significance has come to equal that of the Communist red star. Byzantium and its symbols are discussed on talk shows, their imperial grandeur cited as an example for Russia's own future glory;
The not-so-subtle idea behind all this Byzantium nostalgia is that Russia can (and should) exist only in opposition to the West, which supposedly hated Byzantium in the past just as it hates its spiritual heir, Russia, today.
But all this is fanciful thinking. The old ideas and symbols that Putin has employed to strengthen Russia's self-image no longer correspond to today's global realities, nor do they reflect Russia's present capacities. Yes, the double-headed eagle once signified imperial power. But today it seems more emblematic of the country's split personality, like a desperate attempt to cover up a sense of deep insecurity -- the anxiety of a former superpower torn between the old world and the new one.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
They cant even make babies - how are they going to become a dynasty.
Reagan, Kohl, Thatcher and the Pope
There, finally fixed, OK?
Venice..... Sackers, Vienna....Sachertortes.
There was a hereditary link too. From Wikipedia:
...The nephew of the last Emperor, Constantine XI, Andreas Palaeologos had inherited the defunct title of Byzantine Emperor and used it from 1465 until his death in 1503....At his death, the role of the emperor as a patron of Eastern Orthodoxy was claimed by Ivan III, Grand Duke of Muscovy. He had married Andreas’ sister, Sophia Paleologue, whose grandson, Ivan IV, would become the first Tsar of Russia (tsar, or czar, meaning caesar, is a term traditionally applied by Slavs to the Byzantine Emperors). Their successors supported the idea that Moscow was the proper heir to Rome and Constantinople. The idea of the Russian Empire as the new, Third Rome was kept alive until its demise with the Russian Revolution of 1917.
Just gotta have a little help from the right kind of US president, the kind which is willing to negotiate away the store... hmm, let’s see...
Then why is the Red Star still so prominent in Russia, and why is the hammer and sickle flag of the USSR flown on certain days of the year there?
As I said, there’s plenty of blame to go around.
In the face of what appeared to be the two major threats of the twenty-first century—Communist China and Islam—Russia and the US would seem to be natural allies. They share Christian values, and they have common enemies. In fact, Islam and China are more immediate threats to Russia than to us.
Bush obviously thought so, and apparently Putin did as well. I don’t know what went wrong, and no doubt some of the fault was ours—particularly clinton’s misbegotten war against the Serbs, which he fought on the wrong side for our own national interest, let alone Russia’s, and which both Bush and McCain now seem to approve of.
But it’s a shame we can’t work together. It reminds me of Venice, the Kingdom of Naples, the Holy Roman Empire, all fighting each other when they should have been fighting the Turks.
yes, yes child mistake feel free to flame. Not rot though. It was a byzantine fall many forces at work, from starving out the land holding nobles who provided men and tax revenue because the emperor was scared of the power of the nobles and hired mercs. The Venetian sac pretty much did them in and transfered the wealth to rome.
I’ve always read they were interested, but didn’t have the ability to pay Urban the amount he wanted.
I too would contest the assertion that the fall had to do with internal decadence. However, I would say that civil strife and internal squabbling did play a large part of the decline.
Of course, the crusaders of the Fourth Crusade didn’t really help too much, either.
I don’t know about that. Especially as the Church of Rome (and the West) became ascendant, they made more and more demands of the Orthodox in return for their military aid. If there was one thing that the average Roman (I’ll use the proper term instead of the all too common “Byzantine”) was mostly unwilling to compromise on, it was his faith. Of course, even with the Council of Florence, the West didn’t really snap to the Empire’s defense.
I agree about the war with Persia that left both empires worn down and allowed the muslimes to assert themselves in the ME. It’s like two heavyweights beat each other to a pulp and then some pipsqueak delivers the coup de grace—completely absorbing one and mauling the other.
Woohoo!!! Thanks!
The Fourth Crusade was indeed an abhorrent act. When was it? 1202 to 1204.
It is false to blame the fall in 1453 on something 250 years before is rather like blaming 9/11 on weakness caused by the French and Indian War.
It makes as much and more sense to blame the fall to the Ottomans on taking of the city by Michael VIII in 1261. That was 50 years closer in time to the Fall than the 4th Crusade. What had the Palaeologi done for the last 200 years? If they were not going to do anything, why not let the Latins keep it? Why not work with the Latins, or if they had to take the city, why not emulate the Comemneni to fix the weaknesses and retake the lost territories. The Comemeni did that in only 4 years.
Rather than that, the Palaeogi and their apologists blamed others for their inaction and their failings.
You misunderstand me. I wasn’t blaming the sack of Constantinople in 1204 for the fall. I was simply responding that getting stabbed in the back didn’t help matters. In fact, if you read what I wrote, I attributed the fall largely to the Romans’ inability to unite against their enemies.
However, I would point out the simple fact that actions have consequences. To use your example, it would not be remiss to use the Seven Year’s war to explain why the U.S. is an independent country—and to explain the the run of dominance experienced by the British—this history, combined with what followed, explains the widespread nature of “Anglo” culture around the world. Similarly, is would be correct to state that the Battle of Manikert in 1071 led to the Crusades. These Crusades helped peak European interest in the East. This in turn led to an increase in exploration which resulted in the discovery of the America’s and the West’s emregence as a dominant power.
Also, it is undeniable that the sack of Constantinople fragmented the Empire. This had already begun earlier with the “secession” of the Empire of Trebizond. Even after the city was retaken, the Despotate of Epiros was in conflict with the Palaelogoi. Furthermore, their involvement with the Latins helped retain Western interest in the region. This forced the regime in Constantinople to pay attention to threats from the West—often to the detriment of the territory in Asia Minor. It is debatable whether or not they should have retaken Constantinople, but to expect them not to jump at the opportunity would be unreasonable.
I would also take a good look at the effect that Michael VIII’s dalliance with the Church of Rome had on the public. I also wouldn’t compare the Palaeologoi with the Comneni too closely. The disparity in resources was significant. IMO Alexius and John Comnenus were pretty good emperors by any standards, but I would say the challenges they faced—although very serious—were not on the same level as those faced by the Palaeologan dynasty.
Your explaination is a lot better that what i read in the earlier post.
I suggest that the cunning plan of Constantine, to use religion as a unifying force had a consequence; the ability to divide people based on theological differences. That attempt to use religion as a unifying force had an important consequence: The imitation of its unifying force by Mohammed and his successors. That eventually lead to the horrible writing of a selection of Mohammed’s supposed recitations in the Qu’ran, and the suppresssion of alternative versions of the recitations, much as the Gospel of Peter and other books were suppressed by the Eastern Roman Empire.
Irony that the goverment who sought to manipulate the things of G-d for their benefit was killed by a government which more successfully and blatantly manipulated the things of G-d.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.