u/Low-Cash-2435

My understanding so far is that it’s quite likely that the 3rd century BC poet Callimachus’ Hecale and Aitia were lost, as I believe that Michael Choniates, the archbishop of Athens, possessed copies in his library just prior to the crusade. It’s also possible that considerable portions of Cassius Dio’s history were lost. Finally, it’s conceivable that the Archimedes Palimpsest, a 3rd century bc complex mathematical treatise anticipating calculus thousands of years before Newton and Leibniz, was lost because the the sack caused a highly erudite Byzantine refugee from Constantinople to deposit the manuscript for safekeeping at a certain monastery where, because the monks weren’t equipped to understand it, it would eventually be reused as writing material.

Does anyone else know of other Ancient Greek literature that may have been lost because of the direct or indirect consequences of the crusade?

I'm aware of its presence, but the books I've read barely touch on its prevalence and function in the middle period.

Could someone knowledgeable on this topic assist me with understanding its prevalence and, if possible, the society's view on it? How did Byzantium's views and treatment of slaves differ from its neighbouring societies', such as the Caliphate?

Cheers in advance

https://preview.redd.it/38nyaie01rjh1.png?width=400&format=png&auto=webp&s=9138a403ea19d92ca1caa384cad1bad79ecaceb1

Thank you in advance for your responses.

My (TL) is Ancient Greek

For context:

For 9 months now, I have been independently working through Greek to GCSE, a three-volume grammar-focussed textbook series with many translation exercises. I've about finished book 2.

Hey guys,

With your help and Taylor's magnificent Greek to GCSE textbooks, I've been learning Greek for about a year. As I'm close to making the bold leap to unadapted Greek, I'm beginning to wonder what versions of the original texts I should buy.

I'm aware of the Loeb collection, Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics, and Oxford Classical Texts. Could someone advise me on the advantages of each of the above published editions and of any other options out there.

Cheers in advance and a thank you to the community for your support thus far.

This is something I perennially see: the Arabs are routinely praised for preserving classical literature and knowledge while the Byzantines, if they are mentioned at all, are barely credited. This is the case even though the Arabs were largely indifferent towards the preservation of Greek poetry, drama, and history and did not have access to the majority of the Platonic corpus.

The patent absurdity of this narrative has caused me to ruminate over why it is constantly repeated.

Thoughts?

As is widely known by the members of this forum, the Byzantines were emphatically Roman, and considered themselves as such. However, I've wondered whether educated East Romans from the region of Greece never ceased believing themselves to be descendants of the Ancient Greeks.

It seems to me that such a sentiment would have been quite natural, especially among the classically educated. It may also explain why, in the 14th and 15th centuries, Hellenism is more visible in our sources, as this was the period when the Peloponnese constituted the bulk of the empire's territory and may, therefore, have been the origin of a very great proportion of the educated class.

Thoughts?

Edit 1: to clarify who i'm specifically referring to, I added "educated" before " East Romans from the region of Greece". I very much doubt there would have been knowledge of Ancient Greece at a popular level.

A few years ago, I think I saw one selling for about 500 Euro. Do they still go for such low prices?

Cheers in advance for your help.

Image taken from \"Guided Istanbul Tools\"—https://www.guidedistanbultours.com/en/blog/does-hagia-sophia-relate-to-pantheon

Marxist theory posits a staged economic history, where societies progress from primitive communism to slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and, finally, communism.

It’s certainly the case that Byzantium was not a slave society. Furthermore, despite disagreements in the 20th century, many (perhaps most) historians have also come to seriously doubt that Byzantium was a Feudal society. For example, in the most recent economic history of the Komnenian period, Chris Wickham—a Marxist historian—has come down against the oft-repeated claim that there existed “Anatolian magnates”—that is, landowners who could leverage their wealth to challenge the central government.

With all this in mind, I’m interested to hear from those more conversant in Marxist theory how Byzantium can be reconciled with the Marxist theory of history.

Cheers in advance