Edward Gibbon, one of the most influents historians of modern times, said in his seminal work Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that the 1000 years of Byzantine Empire were an epic of unrelieved degradation and corruption. He was based on the somewhat troubled political history, full of overthrows of emperors, rebellions, and foreign treats (despite being far calmer than any of the Western and Islamic states of the time) and in a congenital prejudice against the orthodox culture (they said Byzantines were corruptors of the great classical culture, mainly due to a weird Herderian view).
But modern scholarship, through all 20th century, worked to refute this theory, and, these times, not a single Byzantinist dare to agre with Gibbon or Montesquieu. First of all, the Byzantine Empire was the most important power in Middle Ages Europe, his currency was the base of monetary Mediterranean until the Latin Empire; the Renaissance of the 10th century, when Plato's work and thought were re-introduced, influenced decisively the Italian Renaissance; and until nowadays, Constantinople is the baluart of Christian ortodoxy. Such influence, military, cultural and economical, would not come from a decadent empire or culture.
In fact, Byzantium had a history of ups and downs. The marked crisis of the 7th century, which has to do not only with the Arab invasion, but also with serious internal dissidences and troubles, was followed by the great renaissance of the 10th and 11th centuries, and culturally the Empire lasted great until the very end of the Comnenian dynasty, and probably at that time, Byzantium was more powerful than at the times of Justiniane and Belisarius. This fact discredits any "global décadence" theory.
Posted by Bruno Hohenstaufen at abril 29, 2004 7:03 PM