Byzantine Culture: how did it develop?

Reading about the relationship between Crusaders and Byzantines, one thing I found interesting is that, the Crusaders thought the Greeks were effeminate and lived luxurious lives, while the Byzantines thought the Franks were brutes who only cared about war.

How did Byzantine culture changed to the point that it became pretty much the opposite from traditional Roman one?

Other urls found in this thread:

essays.quotidiana.org/seneca/scipios_villa/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

OP here:

Here is what Seneca wrote about Scipio's villa, as a comparison:

essays.quotidiana.org/seneca/scipios_villa/

That's actually pretty interesting, bumping for you op

"The east" had always been viewed as more effete and decadent, even before the Romans conquered Greece and Syria (ironically the Greeks said the same about Persians and Egyptians) so by the time of the empire there was a distinct 'eastern' idea (see Augustus turning public opinion against Antony by saying he had gone oriental or Elagabalus's unpopularity)

you think the rich people and aristocracy in the WRE wouldn't call the crusaders violent brutes?

>How did Byzantine culture changed to the point that it became pretty much the opposite from traditional Roman one?
Some of it is cultural drift, but some I imagine is simply the difference between a heavily centralized and urbanized society of the empire and mostly feudal and rural societies of western Europe. I imagine the Franks would call the Romans of any era decadent.

Romans were hardass men for a large part of their history. They were not softer than 12th century German/French/Norman nobles. They were as hard or harder.

Roman aristocrats had stopped being the core of the Roman army by the time of the empire, whereas the existence of feudal aristocracy was based upon military prowess

Hardness and how it's defined is mostly in the eye of the beholder though. The Byzantines were no less effective motherfuckers on the battlefield than the Franks or Ancient Romans. The difference is that outside of war they had all the benefits of a well ordered state, whereas the Franks did not.

And? The Romans were still hard men at times. Scipio was not softer than William the Conqueror.

The comparison between western feudal nobles and eastern Byzantine nobles would show the westerners to be 'harder' even if the Byzantine army was still a powerful force on the battlefield

I said nothing about effectiveness but culture.
Marcus Aurelius had a very well ordered state. He was a hardass man, even if physically weak.

You need to define 'hardness' then because it's a very ambiguous term

And? The Persian army was also strong.

That's not my point at all

early form of orientalism

it's easy to see eastern cultures as decadent and static - draped in silks and fed on olives and grapes

this was projected onto all eastern cultures by westerners who knew nothing about these alien civilisations - the byzantines too were victims of it christian or not

Stoicism.
Mental strength and an austere way of life.

You have no point. You're just screeching about hardness as though it were an objective thing.

Then 'the east' had been viewed as weak since Rome had become a player in the international field
I'm not the one talking about hardness

The Crusaders and the Byzantines did have contact during the Crusades. And they did leave records about what they thought of each other.

The Byzantines were no less stoic or austere than the Franks. They were just filthy stinking rich in comparison. A trait Romans of Aurelius' time also shared.

My mistake.

The point is, the Byzantine Empire WAS Rome and they had an Eastern Culture. During the era of Trajan, there was no difference, for example. The most famous Stoics lived in the Eastern half.

There was a huge difference during the imperial age. See

The Byzantines did have different habits than the Franks.

I never said otherwise.

The Crusader leaders were filthy rich. That's why they could spend a ton of money to save their souls in a Crusade. But they lived a more austere life than the Byzantines.

>But they lived a more austere life than the Byzantines
Based on what? The Franks' word?

The Byzantines words too.

>opposite from traditional Roman one?
How traditional? The last time Romans were anything close to "brutes who only cared about war" was maybe the Punic wars.

Lol. Source that.

Read any book about the Crusades?
The Byzantines did document their distaste over the Franks.

He's talking about the Roman military tradition and the warlike citizen-soldier society they had.

>Byzantine Culture

They documented their distaste for their barbaric and warlike ways. Barbaric and warlike are generally the opposite of stoic and austere. You're just conflating a bunch of different things to reinforce the premise that the Byzantines were somehow decadent as opposed to the proud and manly Franks.

Is this a real thing that happened? I know about the Nika riots but they don't really fit the description.

that had ended by the end of the second punic war

t. gibbon
its an exaggeration based on a variety of events

Nah, it's just a meme.

They also have shown distaste for the simple ways of the Franks.

Cincinatus, Africanus and Aurelius had more in common with each other than either of them had with the Byzantines.

imagine being this stupid

Africanus and Aurelius had similar lifestyles. The same is not true when comparing them to Byzantines.

cincinatus would have been diametrically opposed to everything involved with aurelius

How so?
Civic minded Romans who lived austere lives when they could have luxury.

>emperor

And? They had similar lifestyles and Aurelius didn't abuse his power.

That he kept his power would be incredibly odious to cinncinatus. The whole reason his story is remembered is that he stepped down willingly.

He was famous for saving Rome and not using the opportunity to get more power. Aurelius was also not someone who tried to gain more power for himself.

He also famously willingly stepped down from power. Aurelius didn't. We don't know of spurius was going to overthrow the republic; it was simply the idea of one man having that much power that Cincinnatus was against

Aurelius was held as the model emperor up until the empire's demise.

The only major difference between Franks and the Byzantines was that Byzantines liked the bathe.

OP here.
The issue is not so much comparing Crusaders and Byzantines. The issue is that the Byzantine seemed to have a whole different culture than the Ancient Romans. While the Ancient Romans praised the rustic life, the Byzantines seemed to prefer a luxurious life.

Think about America. The American Founding Fathers had a very different outlook of life than the hippies of the 70's.

That's due to a variety of reasons
First, roman political culture changed greatly after the crisis of the third century and the adoption of Christianity, becoming more outwardly authoritarian and focusing on the luxury and power of the emperor
Second, the eastern half of the empire was always seen as wealthier and more decadent, and the byzantines only had that part
Finally, the crusaders were also of Frankish and German extraction, which had an even bigger focus on military power

>The issue is that the Byzantine seemed to have a whole different culture than the Ancient Romans. While the Ancient Romans praised the rustic life, the Byzantines seemed to prefer a luxurious life.
And we're all telling you that that's not particularly true.

The differences between ancient and medieval Romans are wast certainly, but the notion that Byzantines were especially opulent and luxurious is nonsense. The Christian morality which dominated the empire was essentially Stoic in nature, and Christian asceticism was held up as an ideal way of life.

Constantinople in 11th century was no more grandiose or opulent than Rome was in 2nd century.

>Byzantine culture
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*breathes in*
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

stop laughing at yourself

Byzantines had some armor and some ships. No great works.