Merits of the Byzantine Empire

Part One: Foundation and Importance

Part Two can be found Here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3583973&postcount=26


Now, over the course of the last several days, I’ve noticed at least once person who would believe that the Byzantine empire is perhaps in some fashion overrated, or undeserving of the status that I, and many other give it of being not only the foremost nation in the western world, but very much one of the greatest empires of the mediaeval period, and among the largest impactors on the development of the modern world in terms of culture. It is with this in mind that I create this thread dedicated to the merits of the Byzantine empire, justification for its inclusion in a Civ 4 expansion pack, and give my own suggestions for what might be had in such an expansion for this civilization.


a Map of the Byzantine Empire in and around the eras between the rules of Herclius, and Basil II

1) What is the Byzantine empire?



A depiction of a Mid era Byzantine soldier, and Official

2) What Makes the Byzantine empire a unique entity, rather then a continuation of the late Roman empire?



St Demetrios, metropolitan church of Mistra. St Demetrios was reputedly the site of the crowning of the last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine XI Palaeologos, on 6 January 1449. A carved plaque, depicting the Byzantine double-headed eagle is inset into the Church floor in commemoration

3) What Impact did Byzantine Civilization have on the world at large, once unique from that of Rome and the west?



The Hagia Sophia, a huge Church already included in Civ 4 was built by Emperor Justintian- technically a Late Roman builtding by the "Last Latin Speaking Emperor" Justintian virtually created the world the Byzantines under Heraclius would build upon both good and bad

*I will go over the Merits of Byzantine Military achievements, and suggestions for leaders and the Byzantine UU later, perhaps today, or over the next few days. Perhaps I will add some information on how the Byzantine government worked, such as the thematic system, or other such information, if people seem interested in such details.

I think this should go into the history forum.

I mean, everyone knows Byzantine deserves to be in the game already. =)

Plus it's also so well written.

UU has to be the Cataphract!

The Byzantine Empire was the legitimate Roman State, not a successor state. Pre-Heraclius, the Eastern Empire was already infused with greek culture and at odds and even alien to the Western Empire, as the many Late Roman civil wars, and Justinians barbaric conquest of Ostrogoth-held Italy which pitted Romans against Romans demonstrate. When Belisaurius finally snuffed out any chance of a successor to the Western Empire, the Eastern Empire became the only Roman Empire that existed.

Emperor Heraclius did make some major changes because the Romans lost so much territory to the Arabs and the barbarians, it would have been nonsensical to keep a language like latin when the majority of Romans spoke greek. He also reorganized the military to concentrate on defending Asia Minor and Thrace because that's all the land he had left. But the state survived, documents survived, and the Roman Capital was never taken.

The term 'Byzantine' is a term convienent for scholarly use to distinguish time periods, not a term for a new civilization. Otherwise, why not call the late Roman Empire something different from the 2nd century empire? One was typical 'classical' with a capital in Rome, the other used barbarian horse archers for its military, had western capitals in Milan or Ravenna instead of Rome, had an 'oriental-style' monarchy instead of a Senate (or Praetorian)-appointed military leader, and often was run an administered by Goths.

Scholary consensus isn't unanimous on calling these two distinct civilizations. Warren Threadgold is a very interesting Byzantine historian, who contends my point, that the Roman Empire finally fell in 1207, and even after that lingered a bit. Changes happened over an extended period of time, not just in the reign of one Emperor. The Romans survived thousands of years because they adapted.

Personally, I think the turkish takeover of Istanbul was a dynastic change in the government, the Roman people converted to Islam, and that Rome really fell in 1919. That's my crackpot idea, but seriously, the pre-1207 state was the Roman Empire, unless you throw in anachronistic scholarly distinctions which wouldn't even make sense because the Empire changed so much even before the fall of the West.

By the way, that map is of Byzantium in 1025 during the reign of Basil the Great. It looked a hell of a lot different in Hericlius's time, and looked even more different during the 8th century when Greece was 'barbarian-land' and Byzantium basically looked like the modern state of Turkey.

Nice Xen but why isnt it in the history sub forum?

More importantly, Civ3 Theodora was a Hottie

@Nestorius- In my opinion, the view that the Byzantien state was a continuaation of the Roman state ignores the fact of culture, or otherwise tries ot make a scape goat for it that the Roman dynamically changed cultures as it was needed overtime- when its fiarlly obvious that the real Romans were nothing if not culturally conservative- the papacy itself for example is actually a tradition carried on by Roman soldires who worship of Sol Invictus (Mithra according to many, though I have my thoeries on this particuler religion) was centered on a high father (papa=pope) in Rome as well. Rather, the only real connection between Byzantium and Rome is a political one- because anyway you try to cut it, culture dosent fit- and while one may argue all you like, one begins to feel as though when "Roman" takes ont he greek form of the word, that they becoem a distinclly different nation all of thier own. Its my opinion that the Roman state in the west fell with Augustuls, though fell in spirit much earilier- and that the Eastern empire ceased more or less with Justinian, and Hercalius ushered in the birth of a new empire.

Nestorius said:

By the way, that map is of Byzantium in 1025 during the reign of Basil the Great. It looked a hell of a lot different in Hericlius's time, and looked even more different during the 8th century when Greece was 'barbarian-land' and Byzantium basically looked like the modern state of Turkey.

Click to expand...

not particuraly; less of Greece and Illyria, more of Italy and Carthage was kept- but the main territories are the same, and likewise except for Italy, the map shows the heartlands of the Byzantine empire.

salty said:

More importantly, Civ3 Theodora was a Hottie

Click to expand...

she might have been- but shes not cut out to be the leader of the Byzantines, thats for sure

BCLG100 said:

Nice Xen but why isnt it in the history sub forum?

Click to expand...

because its a response to assertions in the expansion civs thread that the Byzantien empire was soem sort of degenrate Roman state of little importance; when the reality is very much the opposite- besides this, later today, since I'm free for all of it, I'll get around to writing the parts most pertiant to a civ4 expansion thread

The only question is where you'd put them on the World Map if the Ottomans are to be in as well. Not a very big issue.

In C3C, it was always amusing for there to be a Byzantium, a Constantinople, and an Istanbul at the same time.

Despite 'Roman Conservatism', the pre-476 Roman Empire had made some pretty drastic changes over the centuries, including:

1. Dividing the empire into 2 or 4 parts.
2. Switching the Western and Eastern capitals all around... Rome stopped being the capital of the Empire sometime in the 3rd century I think, and capitals bounced all over the place in the East until Constantine.
3. State Conversion to Christianity
4. Dismantling the pagan temples, shutting down the imperial cults that had been believed in for a thousand years
5. Replacing a military predominately composed of citizen foot-soldiers with mercenary forces of federate barbarian horse-archers.
6. The center of power switching over to the East hundreds of years before the fall of the West.

Yet even though the late Empire was dramatically different from the early we consider it the same empire. Or was the 2nd century golden age of Rome the only Rome there was?

Who were the 'real Romans'? Italians were only a tiny fraction of the population, and they let the provinces do what the wanted as long as they paid taxes and lip-service to the emperor. The Empire never had a unified culture, and outside the government, every region had its own culture, language, gods, cults, and traditions. Roman citizens who lived in Greece spoke greek and had greek customs and traditions.

How could the Roman Empire cease with Justinian, when he managed to conquer 75% of the territory back, he was the legitimate successor to the line of emperors going back to Augustus Caeser, and he resided in a capital that was considered the official capital of the Roman Empire for over two hundred years? Emperors continued to come after him, rule, and do the usual things Emperors did like fight barbarians, persians, slave and palace revolts, and muck around with religious dogma.

Hericlius, I consider a greater, more traditional, classical Roman Emperor than most. He took to the field, the first emperor to do so since maybe Valans, he pragmatically adminstered his terrorities according to the rational necessity of the times, not unthinking tradition, and he managed to save the Empire against overwhelming odds. His dynasty ruled the Empire legitimately for over a hundred years, and he continued Roman traditions in so far as the were relevent to the times.

Another important fact to consider is that Byzantium never embraced feudalism... it continued the Roman monarchial line of succession uninterrupted until 1207.

A civ metaphor would be: You are Hindu on rocky terrian and desert, your neighbor is Buddhist and has lots of flood plains. You conquer your neighbor, then your original terrority is invaded and taken over by barbarians. So you make due with your new land and adjust to the circumstances.

So I still say the Byzantine/Roman distinction is artifical for scholarly convienence and the people and rulers themselves considered themselves Roman and saw their tradition and culture as Roman. If there is anything that could be called distinctly Roman, it was the political enity of the state, because the empire was always multicultural, constantly in flux, and over 70% of its inhabitants were slaves who could give two hoots about what empire they were in.

UU HAS to have something to do with greek fire, the first chemical weapon. Maybe a really strong medeival era naval unit, or some replacement of the catapult which increases the power and has extra collateral.

I don't think 70% of feudal serfs cared which kingdom they were in... I guess we should just clump all of feudal Europe into one civ then. And I don't think 70% of Chinese peasants would have cared if they were in China or Japan or Korea or southeast Asia. I guess all of Eastern Asia should be one civ too. Heck, I don't think very many Americans currently care about their country either.

Regarding the map... My point was that the heartland and strength of the Byzantine Empire was more easily defensible Anatolia, and that Greece and the land south of the Danube was depopulated, lost and occupied by barbarian kingdoms for several centuries after Herilcius. The map you posted was Byzantium at its height and glory, after Greece was reconquered and resettled.

By the way, I don't believe the Byzantines were in anyway degenerate. They managed to survival the dark ages in one piece, which is something you can't say about any other civilization of late antiquity.

Potatokiosk, you misinterpreted my statement into exactly the opposite I was saying. My point was that the Romans never lost their government until 1207 despite the changes in the demographics of their population, and so the Roman Empire survived until that date.

As far as accuracy for Civ mods, I'd like to see the Byzantines with a strong galley with extra transport space to reflect their naval dominance of the mediterranean and black sea.

Nestorius said:

Despite 'Roman Conservatism', the pre-476 Roman Empire had made some pretty drastic changes over the centuries, including:

1. Dividing the empire into 2 or 4 parts.
2. Switching the Western and Eastern capitals all around... Rome stopped being the capital of the Empire sometime in the 3rd century I think, and capitals bounced all over the place in the East until Constantine.
3. State Conversion to Christianity
4. Dismantling the pagan temples, shutting down the imperial cults that had been believed in for a thousand years
5. Replacing a military predominately composed of citizen foot-soldiers with mercenary forces of federate barbarian horse-archers.
6. The center of power switching over to the East hundreds of years before the fall of the West.

Click to expand...

1)This is a false conception; the spillting of the empire wasnt in anyway revolutionary at the time- Marcus Aurelius had been the first emperor to actually use a junior partner in ruling the empire, and other emperors both before and after marcus aruelius had named thier sons successors, and minor rulers, so fulfillign the same role- the only difference is that Diocletian took the next step and turned generla practice into actual law

2)In the third century? No, no I can assure you, Rome was still ver firmlly the capital until the 4th century, when it was still cpaital in name, but after diocletian, the emperoship had tunred into a real monarchy, with royal court and all, and so rule of the empire became more important on where the emperor resided- but the official functions of government were still centered on Rome, only to be moved at the kick start of the 5th century and only about 74 years before the western empire itself fell

3)Obviouslly enough, this was hardly a gradual event, and it was one man who essentially did this, Theodosius I, who was the man who actually outlawed Pagan worship

4)we can use this point to sum up information that i may have included in the previous point- Rome to some extent, had been a theocracy to soem degree from its earliest days to its very end- the highest political offices were either tied into religion directlly, or one was expected to have held a religious position beforehand- the pontifex maximus, and how this role was adopted by the emperor serves as example, point and case. For the most part however, this didnt interefere witht he law coming above religion in the Roman world, and special circumstances were eventually made for sych religions like Judaism, belive it or not.

But with the gradual shift to different religions, some included within the origional roman religion, such as Mithraism, and otherwithout, like christianity, coninciding with the general declien in central authority, it became a convient tool to excersize such religious power as a means of state control- the recognition of chirstianity by constantine as a legitimate religion, yet him retianign the highest offices of the old Roman religion- religion, thus became what it had always had the potential to be; a tool of statecraft, and christianty, centrilized as it was around a single god was a perfect match for the concept of a "single emperor" and indeed, we see this becoem a central theme in the Byzantine conscious of rule and religion.

Yet even though the late Empire was dramatically different from the early we consider it the same empire. Or was the 2nd century golden age of Rome the only Rome there was?

Click to expand...

well, i for one dont knwo who this "we" is- I certinally dont consider the Roman empire before and after constainte to be the same at all, in culture or politics- indeed, the reign between Constainte and Theodosius is a teasition period between classic Roman culture, and christian roman culture that would dominate until the renaissance in western europe.

Who were the 'real Romans'? Italians were only a tiny fraction of the population, and they let the provinces do what the wanted as long as they paid taxes and lip-service to the emperor. The Empire never had a unified culture, and outside the government, every region had its own culture, language, gods, cults, and traditions. Roman citizens who lived in Greece spoke greek and had greek customs and traditions.

Click to expand...

well, the simple fact is, this is false- its likelly that Roman italian were one of the single largest populations in all the empire with a population estimated during the reign of constainte- mind you, this is after a period of considerable population decline, of about 6,250,000 people- out of a total population in the western empire of about 22,000,000 this is no small percentile, and indeed, it is the single largest population in all the west- the second runner up is Gual, with about 5,000,000 people in it. given agian that the era of Rome with a population of 1,000,000 people itself was long one, one can only guess at ho emany people may have lived in italy alone- but at any rate, it was very likelly to have been one of the largest population centers in all the empire.

however, moving on to "who the real romans were" it wasnt based on blood so much as culture- while you would like to make the case that nativ epopaultion pain simpel lip service to Rome and kept everythign essentially the same as it had been, this is just not the case. Roman verterans settled and married locals from as far afeild from north africa to the rhineland, they spread the tenatns of Roman language, custums, and civilization where they went, and indeed, when we look at the major areas of settlement of Roman verterns- Italy,Spain,Gual, and the Danube, we see that major latien based languages still exist to this day- the places where Roman culture took root, and spread; these are the "true romans" I speak of

How could the Roman Empire cease with Justinian, when he managed to conquer 75% of the territory back, he was the legitimate successor to the line of emperors going back to Augustus Caeser, and he resided in a capital that was consider the official capital of the Roman Empire for over two hundred years? Emperors continued to come after him, rule, and do the usual things Emperors did like fight barbarians, persians, slave and palace revolts, and muck around with religious dogma.

Click to expand...

Why?

1)dont assume the conquest is ever actually the best thing for anynation- in Justians case he called the "Last latin speakign emperor" and this is probably correct, since so soon after his passing, the empire adopted greek as its language- a firm analyisis of Justianians conquests, and thier effects reveal them to be a gigantic blunder, and over spread the Byzantine army, and brought its finnanical resources under considerabel strain- very honestlly, the empire would have been better off, in the long run, to have never attempted the western reconquests at all

2)You seem to speak as if I cut off the Roman tradition at Justinian- in actually I cut it off right after him (more or less) with the reign of Hercaclius, the man who made eastern Rome into Byzantium

Hericlius, I consider a greater, more traditional, classical Roman Emperor than most. He took to the field, the first emperor to do so since maybe Valans, he pragmatically adminstered his terrorities according to the rational necessity of the times, not unthinking tradition, and he managed to save the Empire against overwhelming odds. His dynasty ruled the Empire legitimately for over a hundred years, and he continued Roman traditions in so far as the were relevent to the times.

Click to expand...

if by continuing roman traditions, you mean speaking greek, chgning the imperial titles to greek, and alienating the western branch of the church, then you would be correct- however, none of those things are actually Roman traditions, in indeed, I challenge you to find me examples of when Heracliuc conformed any sort of traditional standard of Rome rule. coming in a line of ruler dosent mean a thing, when the world has changed so much that those who founded the state can no longer recognize it.

Another important fact to consider is that Byzantium never embraced feudalism... it continued the Roman monarchial line of succession uninterrupted until 1207.

Click to expand...

this seems to be ignorent of the style of governance shown in late rome- never mind the style of rule that WAS a feudal system in the thematic system of governing

A civ metaphor would be: You are Hindu on rocky terrian and desert, your neighbor is Buddhist and has lots of flood plains. You conquer your neighbor, then your original terrority is invaded and taken over by barbarians. So you make due with your new land and adjust to the circumstances.

Click to expand...

in civ, things are not so dynamic as real life

So I still say the Byzantine/Roman distinction is artifical for scholarly convienence and the people and rulers themselves considered themselves Roman and saw their tradition and culture as Roman. If there is anything that could be called distinctly Roman, it was the political enity of the state, because the empire was always multicultural, constantly in flux, and over 70% of its inhabitants were slaves who could give two hoots about what empire they were in.

Click to expand...

1)70% of the empire slaves!? I'd liek to see your source for that! if that propotion of the empire had been slaves, it woudl have never suffered economic collapse at all- the fact of the matter is the slave population in allt he empire was never more then about 10,000,000 TOTAL- this seems like alot, and by most estimites it is- but not when taken into contexts that this is at the imperial height, when the total population was around 60-80,000,000- and WELL under you "70%"

2)The polish considered themselves th heirs ot the Roman republic, yet I see one strinving to call them Romans- the english said they were the descendents of Trojans, yet I see one trying call them Trojans- the point of these examples is that regardless of what a nation may call itself, it cannot seperate it from the fact of what it is, what it is made up of- what constitutes its very being- and mind you in the case of Byzantium as I have fairly well shown, they are not Romans- you see not the principate of Augustus in the rules of the Byzantine monarchs, you see a theocracy, we do not see works of prose crafted in lofty latin, we see documents of Greek exclusivlly- the culture of the Byzantien empire was so markedlly different from that of Rome- and mind you, so was that of the western roman empire that by the tiem it fell, it was no longer Classical Roman either- that it must by definition be considered a seperate and distinct entity of culture and civlization- based upon, but not a part of classical Greek and Roman civlization

1. Diocletian's reforms were revolutionary and changed the Empire forever, so I don't understand how that was a casual adjustment.
2. Yes, 4th century, not 3rd, is when they started moving the capital around. Sorry, my mistake.
3. I'm not arguing about Christianity and the dismantling of the traditional religion, but it didn't happen overnight.
4. The late Roman Empire and the early Empire may have been different and had different cultures, but they were the same State. Certainly modern-day United States is very different from the United States of 1802 culturely and territorially.
5. You speak of the true Romans as the Westerners, not the Easterners. That's kind of arbitrary. Wasn't the Danube region depopulated, Gaul, taken over by the Franks, Spain taken over by Visigoths? Of course culture survived, with the help of the Vatican, but it was transformed by barbarian traditions. But, if you can see continuity between the late Western Roman Empire and Western Europe, I don't understand how you can't see continuity between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, especially when the actual state and government survived!
6. I agree Justinian made a mistake by over-extending. Yet, perhaps things would have turned out different if the plagues never came...
7. I may be exaggerating about Hericlius, but you exaggerate his impact on culture. The most notable thing he did was fight the Persians and Arabs successfully enough for the state to survive. By the way, it was a later Emperor who organized the themes.
8. The Late Roman Empire was not feudal... it was something different, which evolved in two different ways, feudalism in the West when it mixed with barbarian culture, while the government in the East stayed far more centralized. The Themes were not fiefs, they were a way of organizing and funding the Army that served the government.
9. Slaves - Yeah, I made that figure up... sorry. But a big reason the barbarians became such a strong force in the West is that the slaves and lower classes had little loyality or love for the Roman state or its culture.
10. What's Poland got to do with it? Byzantium's government was an unbroken continuation of the same government founded by Augustus Caesar. There was transformation, and you marking it at Hericlius is as good as any, but you still haven't convinced me that a change of official language, or a disagreement with the inconsequential Western Church, or the aspirations of barbarian kingdoms on former Roman territory demonstrate that the Byzantine Empire was anything other than the Eastern Empire as it evolved into the middle ages.

well, I thank you, very sincerlly, for not answering all my argument in huge posts- I really have to say you now the best person I've ever had a debate with at CFC (not to snub guy like Oda nabunaga, or Calgcus, but dammit, I hate how they argue)

1)true, but the precetndent wasnt revolutionary in itself- that what I was arguing for, not the impact that it would have, only that the build upto it was long in coming, and could have easilly resulted insomthing like it before, or it never coming into play at all, had diocletian not stepped upto the plate.

2)no prob, everyone can get caught up in all the facts once in a while

3)I somewhat agree with this, but the argument seems to have been how the Romans, a socially conservative people would have converted to christianity, and for me the answer is that the Romans proper didnt- for most of its early history christianity was a slave and criminals religion, its promise of eternal slavation appealing to many, but many Roman men, particuraley those with anyconnection to the military, were worshipping Sol Invictus, who has a similer spin to his religion- and indeed, even after Theodosius, the conversion to christianity was slow- major populations still existed in the east, were different religions were treated rather harshly (even different sects of christianity) in the era of Justianian!

4)I'd say the physical culture of the united states has changed, but the basic ideals are still the same- the situation fo the late Roman empire is more along the lines of Canada and Britian, where Canada is was, and still is deeplly connected to British culture but indipendent of it- similer to the easter empire- and as the the empire grew seperate, as we see with canada and britain, thier cultuer has gradually drifted away as well. The Political situation isnt all that different- if one wanted to argue it, the case could prbably be made that Canada is alegitimate air to Britian politicaly, but no one cares to do it- likewise, Byzantium was a nation split off from Rome, starting with a somewhat similar culture that gradual grew different, both polticaly and culturally, until the only similarity between it, and Rome was the name- which now, ironically, not even a Latin one for Roman, but a Greek version of it.

5)well, it all depends- the Danube area in the area between the Danube and Adriatic still had a population of around 3-4,000,000 (which is why the influx of slavs, amount to mabey half a million total never dominated the region genetically, though over came it culturealy) like wise, similer is probably true of the souther danube, where enough of the native population susrived to create the Romanian language and ethnic nation we know of today.

As far as the cultural traditions, you shoudl check out this thread- I havt actually gotten around to making a counter argument to the last point, because my time to goof on the internet is limited (school work, people in my life, you know the drill- somtimes time that might be spent on the net is best spent somwhere else ) http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150877 you may need to search for a page or two, but you'll pick up the argument that I've made that the feudal system is the descendent of the late Roman governance structure fairly quickly- and you'll see where my opinion is based upon (that nearly no actually barbarian traditions survived from the darkages to impact western culture)

6) If the plagues had never came, its up in the air as to what would have happend! certinally be interesting to see what would happend, IMO!

7) Hmm, perhaps I got two emperors mixed up, I'll need to look into it some, but Heraclius isnt himself so important as what he did is representative of the changes going on in the eastern empire that fully truned itfrom the eastern Roman empire into the Byzantine empire- his actions, if anything, are the real symbolic and offical "key" that opend Byzantium, and closed out Rome.

8)well, constatine reduced the status of the freemen farmers ot that of serfs, high government position was almost always restricted ot the upperclassmen, who owned huge estates worked by these peasant farmers, as slaves were scarece in the late empire, as compared to earlier days, and of course, military and government positions began to take the same functions and titles as they woudl later- such as Dux, which woudl evolve into Duke, amoung others- the only thing missing was fully hereditary passing on of titles and positions, which in theory existed for the emperors at least, as the tieing of famillies to particuler areas of land- and the sitation was only more accute once the thematic system cam eintobeing, when the military situation became more along the lines of the feudal set up, with local armies commanded by a local governor whom was expected to be a military commander- aristocrats provided the heavy cavalry, and local people provided a milita; this would all work in conjunction until the professional imperial army, based on the late Roman model would arrive to realy deal with the situation- if anything, not only was it a feaudal system, but it was one taken to the next leval, and more highlly developed, which of course is no great surprise given the superior resources the Byzantines had to work with.

9)well, your somehwat right on this- the lowerclass (slaves in the west were hard to coem by at the end) had little loyalty to Rome itself until it was too late- after which we see native resistence in the form of successor states like that of Syagrius cropping up in Northern france, or the citizens of Italy welcoming Belisarius in with open arms.

Of course, its interesting to note, if Justianian had not reconqoured the west, the western empire may have strove back anyway- a charicter called Liberius the Patrician, a Roman nobleman, who, like Roman noblemen in most regions of the empire, was adopted into the nobility of the franks or ostrogoths, as these people had no real ability to rule the land themselves- Liberius had done what had failed the late Roman emperors, and created an effective form of taxation that did not rob the people blind, yet still generated a surplus- I've had a hint or two that he was working on creating a native Roman army when the eastern Romans came in and drove the goths out.

10)polands just an example; but the fact is you cant take any one example as THE thing that made Byzantium into a new and unique cultuer and power, rather you have to take it as a whole. and compare this whole to what Rome had been for the majority of its history- a burecratic, merit based system of governance with a culture that whiel conservative, was widelly accepting and tolerating of other cultures, and strove to embrace these cultures, and merge them with Rome, which in the west was hugelly successful; compare this to Byzantium, a highlly xenophobic conservative monarchy whos primary goal was just self preservation, and the crushing of different dogmas then its own, and we see that the two are very obviouslly not the same, and that the latter, by its end, only has the most mininmal traces of the Rome that the Last "Roman Roman" emperors, such as Aurelian or Diocletian knew.

I have done much research on the Byzatines... And I agree that they should be included on an expansion pact.

I don't think, however, anyone mentioned this:

If the Byzantine Empire had not existed during the Dark Ages, chances are, the Arabs would have conquered Europe.

The counter argument to that, however, is that the Arabs made it to Spain, why didn't they conquer it anyway? This was because Spain was so far off from Mecca, or Baghdad, that expansion past the Iberian Peninsula would be incredibly consumeing. Rather, the Balkans and Asia Minor are much easier to go through, and are far closer to the capital than Spain was.

I think that, if the Byzantines are included in an expansion, their UU should be the Cataphract (very awsome, a replacement to Knight? They were armored archers on horses for those who don't know). I think they should have two leaders, Justinian, or Basil II the Bulgar Slayer. Basil II conquered the Bulgarians, and restored the frontier of the river Danube. In addition, at that point, dispite being smaller than under Justinain's Byzantium, it was the most powerful Empire in Europe.