Economic Factors in the Decline of the Byzantine Empire

Economic Factors in the Decline of the problematic Empire In this obligate taken from The Journal of Economic History, Peter Charanis discusses the cistrons that economicalally affected the celestial latitude of the baffling Empire. His discussion is based on the fact that past scholars, much(prenominal)(prenominal) as English historian Edward Gibbon who wrote The History of the Decline and drop curtain of the Roman Empire, thought the Byzantine Empire was in a constant quantity read of origin throughout its existence, neverthe slight he disagrees. He hypothesizes that more recent scholars have strand that it was, in fact, atomic number 53 of the outstanding conglomerates in history.He references to historians such as Fridtjof Nansen, author of LArmenie et le proche Orient, who said that the Byzantine culture is and will remain one of the most remarkable industrial plant of architecture, and if the Byzantine culture had throwd nothing only that, it would be suff icient to bar it among the greatest. Charanis is convinced that most scholars today reject Gibbons theory, and this condition discusses why he believes so. Because the Byzantine Empire endured for over a special K years and was the center of civilization until the middle of the eleventh light speed, it could not be looked at as a constantly declining empire.According to Charanis, it preserved antiquity, developed advanced forms of art, and held back barbarians. Byzantium produced great soldiers, statesmen, diplomats, reformers, and scholars. It was also successful at spreading the gospel among pagan tribes. Charanis quotes Czech historian F. Dvornik who wrote Les Slaves byzance et Rome au IX say Byzantium molded the undisciplined tribes and made nations out of them it gave to them its religion and institutions, taught their princes how to govern, transmitted to them he very principles of civilation writing and literature. Byzantium was a great power and a great civilizing f orce, Charanis said. He believed that war and religion were the two principal factors that molded the alliance of the empire and determined its external position. Because war was a normal state during Byzantiums thousand year existence, war was not a spring to believe that it was constantly declining. For example, in the seventh century, the Sarcens, Slavs, and Bulgars reduced the empire greatly, but the seventh century emperors reorganized the administration of the empire to cope with the billet at hand.In the eleventh century however, the empire was not as aureate to recover from accepted military reverses that occurred. There were disastrous defeats that they never fully recovered from, and this is what finally led to the beginning of their disapprove. One very alpha factor, according to Charinis sources such as Russian historians books and works, were the conditions the Manzikerts left the empire in. It had such a huge impact on the social and economic brio of the empir e, and this was the basis of its virtual disappearance.Byzantium relied so fully on the social and economic aspect of their culture, that an attack to this was fatal. The Manzikert military aristocracy was far from what the Byzantines were accustomed to, and cause the soldiery-peasantry to decline which was a large part of their state. Up until this point, emperors were able to rework the empire and reorganize things so that Byzantium could thrive, but after(prenominal) their large estate, which had been a huge party of their society, was attacked, it was almost impossible.Charanis believes that the aristocracy that was put in conduct in the eleventh century was also other large factor of decline. Instead of being a social and economic based empire, it was a military aristocracy. The soldiers were the holders of the military estates, and the aristocracy absorbed the estates of the peasants. The focus of the emperors was the happiness of the soldiers and not of the peasants, or al l the other people in the empire, and this was also a large source of decline in Byzantium.Once the emperors of the eleventh century completed that this system was not working quite as well, they tried to create an anti-military policy, which consummated a depression in soldiers. This entire struggle that occurred after the seventh century caused the empire to participate in a series of civil wars affected its sources and manpower, according the Charanis. Other serious factors that caused the decline were the enfeebling of the central administration, the failure to enforce measures of protection for the soldiery-peasantry, and the grants of privileges made to the aristocracy.It has been said that another reason for their decline was the strict controls they placed on commerce and industry, but Charanis disagrees and says it is extremely doubtful that this was their weakness. He backs up this argument by proverb that when those controls were most strictly enforced, was when their empire was at its greatest. He goes on to say that the period of the greatest decline is marked by the breakdown of these controls.Tenth century Byzantine emperor Romanus Lecapenus wrote in one of his novels that the extension of power to the hearty and the depression of power to the many would bring about the irreparable bolshy of the public good. Charanis agrees with him saying that His prediction had come true. The disappearance of the free peasantry, the growth in the wealth, privileges, and power of the aristocracy, and the consequent depression of the agrarian population constitute, I think, some of the principal factors in the decline of the Byzantine Empire. Charanis evidence is clear all there and cited, but it is somewhat difficult to understand his references. Theyre numbered at the bottom and his numbers be meant to further explain certain points throughout the article. Another problem I have with his evidence is that they are mostly books written by foreign autho rs, and I cant read the titles. I believe that Charanis has clearly proven his point and well discussed his thesis however, his argument was not extremely bold, because he is arguing one historians theory (Edward Gibbon), and agreeing with every other historian who believes the Byzantine Empire was great.His argument was more fact-based, and proven through certain points of glory throughout the existence of the empire, and his presentation of these points seemed unorganized. In fact I found the organization of this article to be somewhat confusing. He seemed to jump somewhat from century to century and fact to fact. I believe it would have been much more efficiently written if he had discussed the certain centuries of the empire in chronological order. This also would have more effectively shown the factors that led up to the decline of the Byzantine Empire.Instead he jumped around discussing things that related to the factors, but not thoroughgoing(a)ly discussing what order th e things happened and why one led to the next. Charanis did not heaving new questions in his argument. He simply argued Gibbons theory, and used other historians to back his argument up. In fact, most of the historians that Charanis used as references were quite old, for example, Fridtjof Nansen, a Norwegian author from 1928. No recent authors or suggestions were raised from Charanis article.I think that overall this article offered some very thorough and credible information about the decline of the Byzantine Empire, but since his accredited argument was that Gibbon was wrong, he should have used more examples of historians that support Gibbons theory and argued their points as well. Though he had many historians to back up his argument, his thesis mentioned Gibbon. He definitely proved his point and listed many factors that caused the decline of the Byzantine Empire, but I would have liked to see less confusing organization and newer information that supported his argument.