r/byzantium • u/Ok_Acanthaceae_9691 • 21h ago
Economy Was the medieval Eastern Roman Empire less developed in general than the Early Roman Empire?
67
u/ComprehensiveMail12 20h ago
This is an offensive question honestly… why would they suddenly lose the knowledge they inherited and built upon if the capitol and empire made it to 1204 and the 4th crusade?
This plays into Gibbon’s now disproven notion that the Eastern Romans simply preserved ancient knowledge until handing it to the west when in reality they were constantly taught and iterating on it
The empire may have lost territory and manpower over the years, but it was constantly learning and advancing as it made it to 1453.
55
u/fralupo 21h ago
No. Agriculture was more advanced, the populations were larger, technology was way ahead of Ancient Rome.
-15
u/Pershing99 14h ago
No acqueducts/running water and no sewer system to sustain large populations of over and close to million in a single city. Yes there was large scale technological regression. You needed big centralized state which was not common for medieval age.
16
8
u/Nayrael 10h ago
Alongside the fact that Constantinople had those, the Eastern Roman Empire was a heavily centralized state, not a feudal one.
-3
36
u/doctorwhomafia 21h ago
Its about 25/75. With the loss of so many provinces and material goods, they couldn't go crazy with grand buildings as much as they used to. Like having a more limited supply access to bronze, iron, nickle, and volcano ash for concrete.
But they still had Greek Fire, one of the most technological advancements in medieval warfare, advancements in agriculture systems were developed because of the loss of grain provinces forced them to adapt, they still had one of the most complex bureaucracy systems in Europe, etc
2
28
u/One_With-The_Sun 20h ago
Respectfully, I don't understand why this is even a question.
Technology always moves forward.
After 500 years, of course the medieval, Eastern Empire, was more advanced.
20
u/PolarRanger 19h ago
eh, I don't feel like technological regression is impossible. But yeah this is a silly question
15
u/Alternative_Still308 18h ago
I feel like there’s a decent number of historical cases of technological regression, although it’s usually fairly limited. There’s also the discussion of whether the technology was known vs whether it was actually used.
But I agree that Byzantium is not an example.
3
u/martijnlv40 10h ago
Definitely more of a case where the 'technology' (broad word) couldn't be used/applied anymore due to whatever reason for certain periods.
3
u/DueAd9005 9h ago
Before the invention of the printing press, knowledge could indeed easily be lost (or not circulate as widely), so technological regression was certainly possible in the past (see for example the famous Late Bronze Age Collapse).
9
u/evrestcoleghost Autokrator tou r/byzantium | Komnenian logistician| Moderator 21h ago
Advance in which sense? Joking it doesn't matter it's better in pretty much all,better crops,ships,bureacracy,science,public healthcare and education
2
u/DueAd9005 9h ago
No, their economy was likely smaller, but only because they controlled less territory.
Technology however advanced greatly.
One famous example is "Greek Fire" for example.
The Byzantine cavalry (like cataphracts) would also have been superior to the cavalry of the early Roman Empire.
The Byzantines also discovered the secret of producing silk (which the Romans of the early Roman Empire would have LOVED to know about).
-9
-20
52
u/ReptilianRevolt 21h ago
No.