I have been fascinated with the Roman Empire since I was 11 years old. Their military prowess, cultural legacy, and influence has echoed through time for 2,000 years. Most people understand that the Roman Empire fell in 476 AD, and this is true for the western empire. What most people fail to realize is that the eastern empire lasted for another millennium after that.

Constantinople was dedicated in 330 AD as the new capital of the entire Roman Empire. The Eastern Empire would make it all the way to 1453, when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Empire. The last of the Romans fought to the last man and made one of the greatest last stands in history. Very few states have matched their incredible run of 1,123 years. Century after century and crisis after crisis. War after war and battle after battle.

So why no love for perhaps the most underrated state that ever existed in the world? They were truly incredible.

Short answer, survivors not innovators

I think a lot of it had to do with the Schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox church.

There's also a much more direct cultural and linguistic connection between the Latin speaking Western Roman empire (and the unified Roman empire before that) and the Greek speaking Eastern/Byzantine empire.

The Western/unified Roman empire also controlled a good portion of Western Europe, from the Iberian peninsula to the Rhein, plus England. This is the part of Europe that would become both culturally and politically dominant moving from the Renaissance and into the Enlightenment period.

BQ78 said:

---

Short answer, survivors not innovators

---

In the end the Arab/Ottoman conquests overshadowed the older Roman empire.

The history of Byzantium with Robin Pierson is one of the absolute greatest podcast series imho. I agree it is under-studied history.

TLDW, but for plagues and getting sacked by crusaders I doubt the ottomans would have been able to take Constantinople, but ultimately it doesn't matter; it happened. One of history's great tragedies though the history of the empire as with most involved some truly terrible rulers/emperors.

A couple more "what ifs":
1. The 1445 Decree of Union succeeds in reuniting Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, and crusader armies intervene to check the Ottoman advance.
2. The British don't intercede when the Russians are outside the gates of Constantinople in 1878.

Green2Maroon said:

---

The Russians used to be very interested in taking Constantinople and setting up a new Byzantine Empire.

---

They've had a tough enough time lately just inching toward Kiev. At one point in Russian history Moscow was supposed to be the 'new Rome' as the heir to Rome after Constantinople fell. There's still some cultural memory of that as an heir to civilization-type of role for themselves, as perhaps absurd as it sounds.

Anyway, the siege itself only went on 55 days. The aftermath was horrific.

Green2Maroon said:

---

The Russians used to be very interested in taking Constantinople and setting up a new Byzantine Empire.

---

Sean McMeekin talks about this at length in his book The Russian Origins of the First World War. Summary: the Russians saw the excuse of supporting the Serbs as a way to take Galicia from Austria-Hungary as an immediate goal. The bigger goal, once the Ottomans entered the war, was Constantinople, both for historical and religious reasons and for warm water ocean access. To that end, the Russians did engage in operations against the Ottomans in the Middle East and the Levant, to include providing arms to the Armenians, whose rebellion against the Ottomans helped spur the Armenian genocide.

According to McMeekin, the Russians were getting close to being ready to move on Constantinople when the Romanov government collapsed.