Survival of the Byzantine Empire
On May 29, 1453 an empire that dominated the world for 1000 years died. Why?
By Jason John Schwarz
The survival of the Byzantine Empire was based on the survival of the faith and independence of the people who lived within the this vast great empire. These people were unique in heritage, beliefs, and learning for all others in Europe of the time and had a fierce sense of cultural identity which they sought to preserve at all costs (Nicol 129). To discover why this empire died we must look at why it formed, how it lived, and what differed in its life that lead it to the fatal meeting on that grim day in May five hundred and fifty-two years ago.
The Byzantine empire was created due to the fall of the Western Roman Empire (Hollister 38). The city of Rome and surrounding lands made up one half of the powerful Roman Empire and the city on Constantinople and the eastern empire over which it stood made up the other half. It was this more flexible, richer half of the empire which survived the sack of Rome and continued to carry on the traditions of the Roman Empire (Hollister 25). Traditions such as the Christian church, the Greek and Latin works of literature, and art were preserved and later returned to the western half of Europe (Nicol 33). These traditions helped distinguish Byzantium from the rest of Europe and demonstrated how much richer this society was than any other society of the time (Hollister 26).
Byzantium's physical location was the first trouble to its survival. The empire was strategically located between the infant western Europe and the infidel world which seethed on the borders of the empire (Browning 94). The walls of the empire were sufficient to repel most minor threats without greatly taxing the army (Hollister 38). Later, after years of indirect protection from this empire the west showed its appreciation by arranging a crusade which not only attacked the empire but which brought the empire under the rule of a western European emperor for a time (Browning 190). The constant attacks on both borders slowly weakened the empire, but the strong, professional military helped to insure the long life of the empire.
The more drastic attacks against the empire came from the people of the Muslim faith The people had strong convictions toward a god that like the Christian god, allow conquest in his name. They began to take land and wealth from the empire in a series of wars which caused the empire to loose most of its domination in the Mediterranean area (Hollister 77). This crippling of the empire hurt the people and the empire more than an single blow during the Middle Ages. It was only during the later life of the empire that it would be damaged in this manner again. The results of this conquest was the change to a more provocative attitude in the empire which signaled its resurgace to both the east and the west which temporarily returned much of the empire's land to it (Guerdan 163).
In contrast with the few military defeats of the time the empire's military managed to retain much of the power of the empire for many years. The military was effective in many other conflicts including defending Constantinople against great odds until its fall. This was shown not only in valiant combat but in shrewd alliances such as that with Venice (Browning 158) and later the Cumans (Browning 160). These alliances were made it reserve the need for combat when the empire did not wish to stretch itself far. Other times bribes were used as an option when an enemy was too great or not worth the time of the empire.
While the military of the empire was its savior, but the culture of the empire is what allowed the empire to grow (Nicol). The culture helped give people a sense of identity which united them until the end of the empire itself (Nicol 130). This culture included a flowering literature, in both the Greek and Latin styles, a variety of art, and most important a rich sense of culture. The heritage of this culture often brought the Byzantine empire in conflict with the west. The mostly Greek background of the people of Byzantium directly contrasted in many respects with the Latin culture that the west had inherited from Rome. These differences were amplified as the two societies contact grew further strained and the cultures each developed separately. This later led to distrust among the two peoples which helped foster incidents such as the attack of Constantinople by the crusaders.
The primary difference in the two societies stemmed from their background (Hollister 25). The Greek language and culture and heritage had never faded from the eastern region and was simply adopted by future peoples. The west was changed by the rule of the Latins, who later developed into the Roman Empire. This distinct difference provided a point on contention that was settled by the fall of the Greek half of the empire to the Turks in 1453, who eradicated most of the remaining Greek culture. The Latin culture of the west survived in their less cultured conquerors and developed in to modern western culture.
The church also helped provide a solid back bone on which the empire stood (Nicol). Once again it was in direct conflict with the western culture, but it provided a true sense of unity in the eastern province. The direct linking of the ruler to the church also increased the strength and position of the church and the ruler mutually (Hollister 40). It was this unity more than any other aspect of the society which prevented the constant changes in government to destroy the empire. The church influence helped guide both the people and the ruler toward a Christian style of life for both themselves and the empire in which they lived. The church is linked to the very end of the empire as a symbol of its greatness surviving in myth until much later times (Guerdan 220).
The church influenced the life of all of the individuals in the empire to some extent. The religious life of the people was the common rule which united the people in both spirit and law. The fear of God and respect for his power was transmitted to the emperor of being in direct lineage to God. This respect for God helped insure loyalty to the government and the emperor which helped keep another sense of unity in the empire which lasted to the fall of Constantinople when the citizens of the city wished to save their emperor. This loyalty was reciprocated from the emperor to his people as being their protectors from God both physically and spiritually. This was shown in his presiding over the church which was established to protect the spirit of the people through constant prayer and his leader of the military.
The leadership of the empire was the common glue which held all of the other pieces of the empire together. The emperor was seen as God's representative on Earth and was treated accordingly by the people. Even when forceful changes of power occurred each new emperor contributed his own new ideas to the empire. Emperors from Constantine I to Constantine XI (XII) Palaeologus contributed their strength to the empire (Browning 298). Contributions in encouraging the growth of the church, establishing the doctrine of the church, arranging the decoration of public places, and leading the army to battle unified the other elements of the society with a common icon which the people could see. The final emperor was so close to his people he refused to flee Constantinople when its fall was eminent and fought to his own death with his people in defense of his empire (Guerdan 217). The power of the emperors was so strong the his body was considered a prize to the conquerors to represent the immense power they had cr
ushed (Guerdan 217-218).
The powerful culture, religion, military, and leadership of Byzantium preserved the empire throughout time. Its people were a proud people who wanted to survive and fought against insurmountable odds to preserve their way of life. The strength of this spirit was so strong that the power of even the fallen empire is still felt today in the powerful works of literature, art, and legacy that still exists from the period. The grace of Constantinople still stands as Istanbul and was even after its fall and pillage one of the most powerful cities on Eastern Europe.
Works Cited
Browning, Robert.The Byzantine Empire. Washington: Catholic U of America Press,1992.
Guerdan, René.Byzantium: Its Triumphs and Tragedy. New York: G.P. Putam's Sons,1957.
Hollister, C. Warren. Medieval Europe: A Short History. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Nicol, Donald. Church and society in the last centuries of Byzantium. New York: Cambridge UP, 1979.