The byzantine empire and medieval the european

There are many similarities and differences between the Byzantine Empire and medieval Western European countries. There are also various factors which have contributed to their changes. The reign of those emperors and traditions of these empires experienced led to crucial historical developments and has additionally taught all of us on how political leaders really should have ruled. The reign of Byzantine chief Justinian We from 482″565 C. At the. was of both glory and devastation. Justinian reconquered much of the ex – Roman Disposition while creating lasting legal codes and cultural icons such as the Hagia Sophia, the world’s major cathedral.

But as soon while Justinian arrived to power anything changed. He introduced all of the laws that never existed into the government and he concluded all currently established traditions. He removed existing offices, established regulations of the military and developed new kinds for the management of public affairs.

His reason for doing so had not been to improve proper rights but just because he wanted everything fresh and named after himself, regardless if something was out of his control he has been renowned himself anyhow.

In accordance to Phase VII from the secret record, Procopius explains Justinian since: fake, two-faced, cruel, hypocritical, never relocated to tears simply by either pleasure or discomfort, a enfrascarse always, a faithless friend, a treacherous enemy, insane for homicide and loot, quarrelsome and revolutionary, quickly led to anything at all, never ready to listen to great counsel, speedy to plan mischief and carry it away, but locating even the ability to hear of anything good distasteful to his ears. It can be obvious that Procopius can be not fond of Justinian. Actually the Secret Record was likely written as they could not openly criticize the Emperor. Procopius’ desire is obvious, that shows that this individual wants to show what a awful emperor Justinian was.

For me, Procopius’ explanation might have been a bit exaggerated mainly because Justinian remains to be known for several achievements through his rule. These included the building of Hagia Sophia, the Justinian Codes and the recapture of several western provinces of the empire. These achievements were not respected by many just like Procopius but there are distinctly different views of his success. As a person Justinian didn’t manage to make clever decisions and he counted on his wife Theodora during tough circumstances but he did make becomes laws that benefited himself and his persons. He likewise continued Roman cultures. Alternatively, Charlemagne was your first of the Holy Both roman Emperors, crowned in the year 800 by Pope Leo

III. Charlemagne continued his dad’s policies and protected the disposition by getting rid of the Lombard’s from power. He reigned during a time of much damage and turmoil in European countries during the dark ages. In Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne this individual describes Charlemagne’s ideals, beliefs and attributes. As explained by Einhard, Charlemagne was a man of countless talents. This individual spent period trying to encourage Christianity, organizing the kingdom, church and nobility around him self, trying to produce a central authorities. I feel that Einhard’s chronicle in Charles has not been exaggerated; it can be obvious that Einhard sees highly of him. To compare Justinian and Charlemagne, both Justinian and Charlemagne tried to reinforce their empires but Charlemagne was more successful. Charles gained power of central Europe and Italy whereas Justinian failed to regain electricity on areas in the East. Charles developed local and government representatives called counts that supported justice and raised armies whereas Justinian only created the Justinian code.

Based away what I examine, I think that the clash between Byzantines as well as the Western Europeans could not had been avoided since not only mixed dough have religious differences additionally they had greater economies. Both of Western Europe and the Subtil Empire also had completely different government buildings. The Subtil Empire was ruled simply by one Chief and instead of direct regulation, used detrimental service to effectively run the empire. American Europe was divided up into a lot of small kingdoms. They were divided by which terminology was spoken and where feudal program was used better. Western Europe was with out a centralized government until the Overdue Middle Ages. Though both the Subtil Empire and Western The european union were primarily Christian, Christianity led to an important division between two. Dissension between the Père and Patriarch over who more power, authority and comprehension of practices in the church bring about the Great Schism.

Economic variations between the two were that European’s methods of manorialism lead to an agricultural centered economy with little trading outside of European countries whereas the Byzantine Disposition became the wealthiest disposition in Europe. Basically, the West had not been developed while the Subtil empire. This is due to Constantinople was the bridge among Europe as well as the rest of the world, and became the center of east-west trade. Policraticus, by Steve of Salisbury, and The Knight in shining armor, by Niccol Machiavelli, show distinct differences of the great ruler between the Medieval Age groups and the period ofRenaissance. Both books had been written in various eras, plus they both discuss the true significance of an ideal leader and how they have to perform to be able to maintain their very own power.

The most significant differences between two copy writers are their various views on religious beliefs, political electrical power, and personal goals. The various ideas about religion individual the Renaissance from the Ancient. It is obvious that the church played an important role inside the lives of these in Dark ages than in the ones from the Renaissance. John of Salisbury focuses on that all power that the ideal leader holds is definitely from The almighty and that He applied it by using a subordinate hand to make everything teach His mercy or justice.

He also declares that the order for the prince should be to fear the Lord his The almighty and to comply with God’s phrases. Whereas intended for Machiavelli, neglects the problem of faith. He selects not to speak about it in his writings. This individual treats religious beliefs and authorities as two different things. This individual believes the law is done by the leader and not simply by God. An additional difference between two is usually their different take on the interests of the leader. John of Salisbury is convinced that the great ruler’s target is to help to make his people wealthier great empire successful. In contrast, to get Machiavelli, the aim of the knight in shining armor is to preserve his electricity and to gratify his people.

1