John Von Neunman was particularly a huge enthusiast of the Byzantine empire. A professor of Byzantine history at Princeton once said that von Neumann had greater expertise in Byzantine history than he did. [0]
That's an awesome fact! I'm reading Von Neumann & Morgenstern's Game Theory and Economic Behavior now and while I'm not surprised he's gifted in other disciplines, it's amazing that someone can be so deep in so many fields.
I can highly recommend History of Byzantium podcast by Robin Pierson.
"The History of Byzantium” is a podcast dedicated to the story of the Roman Empire from the collapse of the West in 476 to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Byzantine history is fascinating, world changing and largely forgotten. Listen and discover who they were."
Thanks for the recommendation. I've been listening to Dan Carlin and his history podcasts and am almost done with all of them. I needed something to add to the queue.
You may want to consider checking out Mike Duncan's podcasts the History of Rome and Revolutions as well. History of Rome especially since it was the ending of that podcast at the fall of the west that encouraged the creation of the History of Byzantium podcast.
Duncan in particular gets much better at doing his podcast after a few dozen episodes. I'm pretty attuned to audio issues and almost dropped the podcast about halfway in, but eventually he figured a few things out and it got a lot nicer to listen to.
Oh my goodness, he's at episode 150+ and he is only at 1000 AD! I thought Dan Carlin was thorough / long-winded, but this guy make Carlin look like a short summary!
A more common criticism of Carlin is that he is not thorough. That isn't a shot at him, usually (though a couple of the historians I know aren't big on his sources), but a lot of that is the format he's decided to go with--when you are limited to mere hours, you're going to necessarily be shallow about things.
Article aside, an Empire that manages to last hundreds of years (1100+ in their case, and even more depending how you calculate it) must've been doing quite a few things right.
Imagine how many enemies, crisis and emperors they had to go through, yet they survived for a very, very long time.
> Article aside, an Empire that manages to last hundreds of years (1100+ in their case, and even more depending how you calculate it) must be doing quite a few things right.
I think it's fairest to calculate it from the founding of Rome (21 Apr 753 BC) to the fall of Constantinople (29 May AD 1453): 2,205 years. In that time it went from a kingdom to a republic to an empire, but the Roman government continued in one form or another.
It's kind of odd but as Greeks in school we learn little for the Byzantium as compared to Classical Greece which pretty much dominates history books. That's probably because Byzantium was never actually Greek, many emperors didn't even speak the language.
For anyone interested in learning the history I would suggest John Julius Norwich's trilogy. Impeccable work.
> Byzantium was never actually Greek, many emperors didn't even speak the language.
Huh? I'll admit I'm not that well-read about Byzantine history, but I had always been under the impression that from the reign of Heraclius (mid-7th-century) onwards[1] the court language was always or virtually always Greek.
[1] Which is also as good a dividing line as any between the "Roman" and "Byzantine" periods.
The Arab Muslims also had an amazing science and tech culture which isn't well appreciated today. Many of the revolutions in Europe in the Middle Ages happened as direct outcomes of Arab Muslim tech. A few of my heros: Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Ismail al-Jazari.
Both al-Khwarizmi (from whose name came "algorithm", and whose main work also gave its name to "algebra") and al-Biruni (astronomer and geographer probably most famous for the most accurate prediction of the Earth's circumference since Eratosthenes) were also Persian rather than Arab as often incorrectly claimed.
The question of the "nationality" of many Islamic Golden Age scientists is interesting, with many people and nations claiming them as "theirs". There are even Soviet [1] and Uzbekistani [2] postal stamps commemorating al-Khwarizmi, since as his name implies he was originating from Khwarezm (now part of Uzbekistan), which at the time was under Persian rule.
It's rather annoying how we're so loose with these terms, of Islam, Persian, and Arab. Most of the important people of the Islamic Golden Age were Persian/Iranian [1].
>"Culturally, politically, and most remarkable of all even religiously, the Iranian contribution to this new Islamic civilization is of immense importance. The work of Iranians can be seen in every field of cultural endeavor, including Arabic poetry, to which poets of Iranian origin composing their poems in Arabic made a very significant contribution."
> Science, medicine, philosophy and technogy in the newly Islamized Iranian society was influenced by and based on the scientific model of the major pre-Islamic Iranian universities in the Sassanian Empire. During this period hundreds of scholars and scientists vastly contributed to technology, science and medicine, later influencing the rise of European science during the Renaissance.
Yes, they are entirely different languages, cultures & religions (Persians are traditionally Zoroastrian, although the vast majority of modern Persians are Moslem, like the Arabs).
That beautiful region, Persia, never really recovered from the Arab conquest. Although its dying embers did fuel the Islamic Golden Age for a few more centuries, until finally and tragically extinguished.
The initial conquest was extremely brutal, but there were few cases of forced conversion. Like many areas taken over by the early Arab caliphates, there was a strong incentive to not encourage conversions, as the Jizya taxes leined on Zoroastrians, Christians, and Jews were one of the more significant sources of state revenue. The first hereditary Muslim dynasty, the Ummayads, prohibited non-Arabs from converting for this reason. Many of the Ummayad Caliphs had deeply bigoted views towards non-Arabs, discriminating against both non-Muslims and Muslims of Non-Arab ethnicity and were extremely hostile to Iranian culture, in some cases executing Iranian subjects for being literate in Persian. Iranian fighters of Sunni, Shiite, and non-Muslim faiths were cruicial in the Abbasid Revolution[1] overthrowing the Ummayads, and afterwards, Iran regained its place as the cultural capital of the Achaemenid and Sassanid dynasties.
I just explained when it happened because parents comment was ambiguous. As for your comments, i am not sure i take wikipedia seriously on historical matters, still, sure it was a different time.
And then what happened? There is a well-circulated comment that "Spain translated more books into Spanish last year than have been translated into Arabic in the last 900 years.". I have no idea if this is true. Can anyone rebut or confirm?
Correct. Here is why -- according to the Koran it itself is the only and final container of truth as provided directly by their god. Hence, why read other books, or bother translating them from other languages?
In the 11th and 12th century Moslem leaders were confronted with a choice -- tolerate and encourage scholars of reason, such as Averroes, who were inspired by their reading of Ancient Greek texts; or enforce adherence to faith in the one, holy book and god as the single explanation of all phenomena. They chose faith (and force) over reason. Averroes lived, and suffered opposition, through that period.
In 642, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of Amr ibn al-As, a contemporary of Mohamet. Amr destroyed the library by order of Caliph Omar, who reportedly stated: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."
According to the annual "UN Arab Human Development Report": 65 million Arab adults are illiterate; only about 300 books are translated from English to Arabic annually; even Greece translates 5x more books into Greek each year than are translated into Arabic (5x with a population ratio of 1/30).
Here is another, detailed report: Illiteracy in the Arab World. [1]
Aside: I just noticed some countries have incredibly low literacy rates. The worst is Niger with 19% [2].
The destruction of a library in Alexandria was chronicled - but when was the original pile of texts destroyed? We are guessing, and there are other good bets.
Moslem chronicles attribute this to Caliph Omar: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."
Whether the Library was destroyed in stages, and by a variety of earlier parties, is completely irrelevant.
The library of Alexandria was a uniquely expansive collection of ancient books, a vast literature vanished with it. No subsequent library, to my knowledge, held so many unique volumes. Which is the point you're missing. The loss not of a copy, but the last copy, of so many books of such age.
You're still missing the point, in the context of the severe deficit of book translations in the modern Arab world: The Caliph's order --as chronicled-- reveals a certain attitude towards books other than the Koran.
Which point is true and has nothing to do with the question of whether your claim re the library of Alexandria was false. You could have replied, earlier, that you didn't care one way or another about which library was burnt, and regretted if you had inadvertently spread misinformation about something you were not primarily concerned about. You didn't do that. I take it you are doing that now, just in a far less than civil manner. Please note that I do not use italics, here.
If you are defended "final", last destruction of a rebuilt library intended to be as grand - I am unaware of support for this, but would be interested.
Except that we know for a fact that the Greeks themselves preserved, and translated these sources. As part of the active trade, and religious ties with the West.
I am not aware of Aristotle's works surviving among the Greeks. Islamic scholars are credited with the preservation of his works and their reintroduction to the West.
Exaggeratedly credited so. While the works of some scholars in the Moslem world did contribute to the preliminary path towards the European Renaissance, their contribution was neither essential nor crucial. Byzantine monks and scholars regularly traveled and taught in Europe over the entire duration of the Eastern Roman Empire. For example, one of the first archbishops of Canterbury, Theodore of Tarsus (602-690), was a Greek educated in Byzantium.
The rediscovery and veneration of Ancient Greek philosophy and science was not caused by a new-found ability to read Ancient Greek texts -- but by a new inclination to respect reason, which had last reigned in full glory during Ancient Greece.
Reference: "The Aristotle Adventure: A Guide to the Greek, Arabic, and Latin Scholars who Transmitted Aristotle's Logic to the Renaissance"
I gave you a reference to a scholarly book that traces the path of Aristotle's most crucial work through the ages, instrumental in triggering the Renaissance.
The links you provide support my argument, although they incorrectly claim that knowledge of the Greek language and Greek texts themselves at some point almost disappeared from the West. This is false. For instance Pépin le Bref, father of Carolus Magnus (Charles the Great) petitioned pope Paul I and was gifted a large collection of Greek works including a copy of Aristotle's works, as well as access to a contingent of translators (over the centuries Byzantine monks regularly travelled to Italy, teaching Greek and bringing Greek works with them). The Carolingians did not primarily rely on Arabic texts to access the Greek works, and those who did initially use these texts quickly turned to original Greek copies for the sake of quality and completeness. One of the key Latin translations of Aristotle's works in the 12th century was made directly from Greek by Iacobus Veneticus Graecus (James of Venice) who studied in Constantinople; that translation was the one read by Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas.
The simplest would be just to start with "Avicenna" and "al-Jazari" and get lost down the wikipedia rabbit hole.
Also: take a look at why we have a subject called "algebra" while we have a 17th century system "calculus" named after the roman word for pebble.
Nicely, the Wikipedia's entry for "algorithm" starts with the etymology of the word, which combines these threads (Hindu scholars -> Islamic scholars -> medieval scholars)º. BTW the Indian counting system's roots appear to lie in Babylonian sexagesimal counting but the Indians appear to be the first to figure out position numeration and do 5/10-based arithmetic quickly and simply by taking advantage of it.
º And doesn't mention the congressional funding of the Internet at all (if you remember that hoary joke)
Your point cannot be under-emphasized! We would not have the classical Greek literature (& science, to the degree they were different) in the west today without the Arabs scholars. They also brought Hindu digits and mathematics (which we, tellingly, refer to as "arabic digits") to the west.
>We would not have the classical Greek literature (& science, to the degree they were different) in the west today without the Arabs scholars.
The Byzantines preserved the classical Greek literature much better. They preserved it in the language it was written and which they still understood. When, starting the early XV, the bulk of that literature was translated into Latin and disseminated, thanks to Guttenberg, through Italy and Europe, the true rebirth started.
There was also the Toledo School of Translators in the city of Toledo whose translations of Arabic, Greek, and Hebrew texts in the 12th and 13th centuries were influential in bringing that knowledge into European universities. Toledo, at this time, was extremely cosmopolitan by that era's standards.
I believe his point isn't that they influenced the Greeks, but that they are largely credited with maintaining the recordings of Greek science/literature/philosophy that allowed them to endure to this day.
This isn't true the vast majority were preserved in Byzantium.
"The real influence of Dionysius in the West began with the gift in 827 of a Greek copy of his works by the Byzantine Emperor Michael II to the Carolingian King Louis the Pious. "
I think what GP is referring to is Arab scholars' role in preserving classical science and literature after the fall of the Roman Empire in the west (so that, as the narrative goes, it could be brought back by European explorers to trigger the Renaissance).
There's this book, Aristotle at the Mountain of Saint-Michele, that has caused some controversy around the idea that only muslim scholars have preserved ancient greek knowledge.
1) I'm referring to a commonly known narrative, not necessarily the truth (I've recently been trying to encourage myself to recognize when my "knowledge" is of limited veracity).
2) I think the assumption is less that they were unable and more that they did not. I'm not familiar enough with the history of library science to judge this.
What was key is that Islamic scholars translated the Greek works and made them available in Europe. I'm not discounting the amazing engineering works done by the Greeks and Turks.
Actually, Byzantine monks regularly travelled to Italy for centuries, bringing scrolls with them to teach Ancient Greek. This movement accelerated during the crusades, and got its final major impetus at the final fall of Constantinople.
The myth that somehow the West owes access to the texts of Ancient Greece to the anti-reason Moslem world is very misleading. One would have to believe that there was zero contact for one thousand years between Western Europe and Byzantium -- an utterly, bizarrely wrong notion.
Byzantine monks had the same neoplatonic ideas that were common in Western Europe, having been established around Constantine's reign. Aristotelian ideas lived on in the Arab world, and it is contact with their philosophical works that led to Aristotelian ideas in Christianity.
I can own a book my entire life, it doesn't make me an expert on it and people I interact with won't gain an interest in it.
Thomas Aquinas read Latin translations of Aristotle's works by Iacobus Veneticus Graecus (James of Venice) -- who studied in Constantinople and translated Greek works held in Constantinople.
The fact that Byzantine scholars were inclined to Platonism does not mean that they destroyed or completely ignored Aristotle's works.
The fact that scholars in Europe thought by the 12th century that maybe they should pay more attention to Aristotle does not mean that they had entirely forgotten who he was.
The fact that Pépin the Short (8th century) received a copy of Aristotle's works in Greek from pope Paul I does not mean that the West had completely lost --nor lost interest in-- the Aristotelian body of work.
It's not like James of Venice just tripped over a scroll and decided to translate that. Arabic translations had existed for a while, but multiple translations can change the text. Plus, a link to Islamic scholars would add resistance to the ideas spreading.
He was largely ignored throughout the Christian world, but not completely. I haven't heard this Pepin story, quick research could only find it originating from the thirteenth century. Seems like standard Catholic propaganda, the great Pope sent books to ensure Charles Martel would have the knowledge necessary to stop the Muslim armies.
After six long centuries dormant they also were influenced by their Arab neighbors. Their philosophy would all be from around the same time, until 1054 they were a part of Christian philosophy.
Are we to believe that the Byzantines did not keep or study Aristotle's works in Greek? or that somehow the Arabs/Moslems taught the Byzantines about Aristotle?
"Leo the Mathematician [790-869] ... appointed to the chair of philosophy at the Magnaura School in the mid-9th century, was to teach Aristotelian logic. In fact, elementary Aristotelian logic and natural philosophy combined with elementary mathematics would always form the standard philosophical curriculum in Byzantium" [for at least the next 400 years].
The heirs of the Roman Empire did not depend on nor need Moslem culture for the study and transmission of Aristotle's works. We know it because the Byzantines kept studying Aristotle for centuries, until they were destroyed by Moslem armies, and at the same time the Carolingians had access to Greek works and Greek translators -- including the Byzantines themselves.
They kept them, and there was likely some limited study over the centuries, but yes. Christian thought dominated the period, and it largely ignored Aristotle. I don't know why that's hard to believe, there has been a staggering amount of scholarly works lost over the centuries.
Leo the Mathematician supposedly lived on an island with frequent contact with Muslims, and then supposedly met with the Caliph. Even still, I can't find where this tie to Aristotle comes from.
According to everything I've read about Leo, he was from the Greek mainland, he did not have "frequent contact" with Moslems, and he never "met with the Caliph".
No, his student was kidnapped, and it's unclear who he received the Caliph's letter from. I assumed he had met with him, but it wasn't explicitly said.
Given your repeated quoting of a thirteenth century source on the alleged seventh century burning of the Library of Alexandria, I'm done.
It's simply not true that Aristotle died out in Byzantium. All these intellectual currents were absorbed into the Christian theology of Byzantium which is Orthodox and different from Western Christiandom.
The Orthodox split happened in 1054. Though there was a gradual shift apart before that they were very closely related. If your argument was that Orthodox Christianity moved towards Aristotle a century before the West, that seems to be well backed up.
Your first book lists five people covered in the book, all of them outside the period being discussed. I have no idea why you think the second one will support your argument.
The Bibliotheca shows my point, the Roman Christians largely kept knowledge they considered important, and this didn't include Aristotle. The table of contents is full of Christian and Roman subjects, with only a few ancient Greeks mentioned. Aristotle is absent.
The neoplatonic views of Christianity during the period are well known, and several hundred years of that lead to Aristotle being neglected.
If you read it Aristotle is frequently cited e.g codex 242 and 249. Having read Aristotle was basically assumed at the time and hardly worth mentioning in the TOC of a book of this sort.
2/3rds of the book has a public domain translation, "frequent" is a stretch. Your unsourced article says he was ignored for being in wide circulation, but there are multiple works discussing Plato.
Did you read that article? Again, it agrees with everything I'm saying. Sixth century authors, five centuries with almost nothing, then a return. Even the sixth century mentions they were unfamiliar with Aristotle's actual works, except maybe reading "Categories," the only work I can find Photius or Aretha's commenting on. And it mentions repeatedly that Plato had dominance, even saying Aristotlean views were near heresy at times.
We are reading the same article and getting completely different readings. Both those links were written by professors in this exact area. One states the Aristotle was in wide circulation, the other states that photius likely wrote textbooks for use in schools on aristotle so he was hardly neglected. Did you read about Arethas? We even have knowledge of Photius's textbook on Aristotle's topics.
There were no new commentaries on Aristotle for a long time but that doesn't mean he was forgotten.
Notice also throughout all these links that it is unanimous that after Islamic invasion learning in general went into quick and rapid decline.
Being a professor in that area doesn't mean your word is absolute truth, this topic has been full of bias from the beginning with Christians reluctant to admit Islamic influence. Adding in that "learning in general went in to decline," an absurd fantasy that none of your sources back up, means that's probably the basis for this disagreement.
So Photius wrote something on "Topics," we're now at 1/3rd of Aristotle's principle collection on Logic. Nothing about his further philosophical ideas.
Did you read the last link I cited? It mentions many Byzantine philosophers and their links to Aristotle. There is no serious suggestion that Aristotle ever died out in Byzantium or that foreign intervention was required to rediscover him. Knowledge of Aristotle is assumed in most of the primary sources from that time.
You must remember that all the original church fathers quoted and discussed Aristotle, so the Byzantine theology made frequent reference to him. He was part of the religious canon.
Aristotle worship was wrong anyway, the Byzantines and Avicenna were right to concentrate on Plato and not the inferior Aristotle. Most of which was incorporated into early Christian theology, Aristotle was rightly marginalised but that doesn't mean he was forgotten.
I can't seem to reply to your comment below. Yes they produced no new commentaries... Byzantiums were extremely conservative, they disdained innovation, so why would they write new commentaries where there were already several hundred years worth of commentaries?
We have also lost a lot of Byzantium primary sources but it is obvious from reading the remaining primary sources that knowledge of Aristotle was assumed.
It is not stated anywhere that Aristotle was "forgotten", in all the primary documents including Neoplatonic Aristotle is frequently mentioned.
Where do you get the idea that Byzantium and Islam were in philosophic discourse?
Your new article doesn't list anything new in the period discussed, a few people writing about his logic for hundreds of years.
Going back to your first source offered,
"It deserves to be noted that before the 12th century, the whole Byzantine output of Aristotelian commentaries dealt exclusively with the works on logic."
Your opinion on what the better philosophy is does not matter. It's funny to see you take a neoplatonic view and try to argue that they welcomed competing ideas.
Yes they produced no new commentaries... Byzantiums were extremely conservative, they disdained innovation, so why would they write new commentaries where there were already several hundred years worth of commentaries?
We have also lost a lot of Byzantium primary sources but it is obvious from reading the remaining primary sources that knowledge of Aristotle was assumed.
It is not stated anywhere that Aristotle was "forgotten", in all the primary documents including Neoplatonic Aristotle is frequently mentioned.
Where do you get the idea that Byzantium and Islam were in philosophic discourse?
Your first post mentioned the Bibliotheca, a review of many books written during thi period about things that already had commentaries. Aristotle was neglected for centuries.
What primary sources are you using? As none of the plethora you keep bringing up are primary. And why would something's state it had forgotten Aristotle? If you don't value something, it's just largely ignored.
Many of the philosophers brought up in this discussion recorded contact with the Abbasid Caliphate in some manner. They shared a border and the Mediterranean, it would be hard not to be in contact.
have you read Byzantine history? They were sworn enemies of Islam throughout this entire period not discussing the nuances of philosophy.
I can keep citing articles claiming Aristotle was not forgotten but it seems pointless at this stage. Many of the early church fathers mention Aristotle.
Aristotle was considered a minor philosopher throughout this time but his work was still available.
Indeed. I have read that we wouldn't know of Averroes had his works not been preserved in the West, since all traces of him were expunged from the Islamic world.
Well yeah I saw it. So then we know at least there are three people exists in the history who they try to fly with robe. The Arab, Hezarfen and the French guy. People are weird. These are some kind of wingsuit prototype.
There are more than three. A lot, in the later stages, died trying to create modern parachutes too, others were more modest in the heights (and above what surfaces) they tested their devices.
Also the several attempts at bird-like planes to fly (with movable bird-like wings).
If Byzantium (Constantinople) had lasted just another 39 years (to 1492, to be precise), then one could claim (sort-of) that the Roman Empire had lasted until the West discovered America.
When the western capital Rome fell, people moved east (imagine moving from California to New York). But the Byzantines still called themselves Roman.
When the eastern capital was invaded by the Ottoman Turks, they moved west to rebuild Rome - and started the "Renaissance".
There was no Renaissance, some magical discovery of ancient knowledge, with masterful artists and scientists like the world had never seen. It was a continuation of the Roman tradition!
In fact, one can even go back before Rome to Greece, to Alexander the Great conquering Darius the Mede, to Medo-Persia, to Babylon, to Assyria, to Mesopotamia.
Writing was invented in 3 places: Sumeria, China, and South America. But the Mayan history is almost lost (3 books survive). Western culture split from middle-eastern, and Indian civilisation got fragmented until the British Raj forced everyone to learn English, a Latin language.
Since the dawn of history, there have been Western, Middle Eastern, and China as world powers.
Only in this generation do we have machine translation (Google Translate) to finally share our knowledge more easily between these cultures.
I propose a translated search. Pass the query through Google Translate before loading results. Then if I want to know about the legend of a talking ox, I can find it from Pliny ( http://peterburk.github.io/pliny ) or from the Chinese.
I feel I must defend Aristotle. At least we would need a lot more information before we can conclude that Philoponos really knew what he was talking about. Of course he was right but for this to be effective there needs to be a theory and better experiments and that is what Galileo provided. I recommend Carlo Rovelli's essay on Aristotle's Physics: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4057.pdf.
>Of course he was right but for this to be effective there needs to be a theory and better experiments and that is what Galileo provided.
It only needs the simple observation the kind of Philoponos did to refute Aristotle's thesis. And his arguments show that he knew what he was talking about -- very to the point.
What would need "a theory and better experiments" would be to create a physics of falling -- Philoponos didn't do that (or said he did). He merely refuted Aristotle. We celebrate Democritus atomic theory for far less (as he did no experiments and it was just an idea he had).
More like notes for an article really. Or a high school exercise in creating a summary. I would give it something like "6/10, must try harder".
Might have been interesting to read if there had been more than clickbait so I only read the first two of the six. The fact that the earth is a globe was known at least 1200 years earlier than Symeon Seth because the circumference had been measured by Eratosthenes <https://www.thoughtco.com/eratosthenes-biography-1435011>.
I'm disappointed, Nautilus is usually a bit better than this.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Early_career_...