0
2

[–] WORF_MOTORBOATS_TROI 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If you're interested, I elaborated a bit in reply to oswy's comment below.

0
2

[–] Oswy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Exactly. Romano-Germanic and Graeco-Slavonic are probably better terms than West and East, or simply Latin versus Greek Christendom. You have to realise, Worf, that there wasn't really a pan-European feeling. The Crusaders' behaviour demonstrated this very clearly. We are only the heirs of Greece in various intellectual ways, it's not a direct succession at all.

0
1

[–] WORF_MOTORBOATS_TROI 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You're getting your timelines confused. I'm talking about the 7th century, the Byzantine empire continued for another 800 years after that and that has no bearing on my point There wasn't east vs west, there was civilization (Roman) vs barbarian (everyone else). There was no such thing as Romano-Germanic until Charlemagne united western europe 150 years later and had himself crowned holy roman emperor. The schism between latin and greek christendom occured 400 years later. The germanic tribes that migrated into france, spain, england, and north africa as the western roman empire crumbled had not been part of the roman empire.

The muslims started fighting the byzantines and the persians in the early 7th century. At that time the Byzantines were all that was left of western civilization. They owned sicily and like a third of italy, which were areas that preserved roman culture. This legacy was also preserved to a degree in the institution of the church.

The grermanic-romano high culture that emerged after Charlemagne conquered western europe was not sitting around latent in all these barbarians that migrated into francia only to spring to blossom when Charlemagne brought some stability to the area. That cultural heritage was fostered in the church and in the parts of europe that remained safe in the Byzantine empire and then spread back to the franks by Charlemagne.

Tl;dr if the 7th century byzantines were not "western civilization" then you are basically arguing that there was no such thing as western civilization until charlemagne.

0
0

[–] Oswy ago 

In the 600s things still hadn't "hardened", but all the pieces were already in place. Charlemagne's coronation was just the cherry on a cake that had been baking for centuries. Men like Stilicho and Odoacre were those who really laid the foundations. The Goths and Lombards had done more to create the West than the Franks, who came to the table a bit later. The compromise modus operandi between German kings and Roman political structures that gave birth to the West was already a fait accompli in the 700s. You are right to point out that a Roman/Barbarian division was still current, but "civilisation" was far more permeable or woolly round the edges by then. Romanisation had an impact beyond the frontiers, so that most incoming barbarians were already a part of the system they eventually took over. You shouldn't forget that Latin-Greek tensions, or centrifugal forces rather, were already being felt in Diocletian's day, either. To call the Eastern Roman Empire "the West" just seems wrong on so many levels. Constantinople was more concerned with the Caucasus, Asia Minor, the Levant and Egypt than with us out by the Atlantic.