I never said they could take Greece. They took most of Thessaly and the coastline up to and past the Hellespont. And I said they successfully suppressed Rebellions, referring to the ones in Egypt.

Still, even taking that into account, you're saying that an empire that conquered everything from the Hellespont to the Indus River was a failed state. Based on that shoddy argument, I could say the same thing about the Byzantines. What did they conquer? The Vandal kingdom and parts of Italy, which quickly rebelled and we're lost. The Byzantines were not as successful as you say. Check your facts because you are severely misguided.

OK. TIME OUT.

first of all, the Persians were not a "failed state" they were pretty great. BUT Byzantium still WINS. I f we can't decide militarily (even though I'm still not exactly sure why the Persians are just as good). Let's compare culturally.
1) Persia, as previously noted, built first road system, postal system and one of the seven wonders.
2) Byzantium preserved much of what we know about ancient Greek philosophers, and Roman law. They also built wondrous achievements (Hagia Sophia, which is much more impressive than people realize, I suggest you do some research). But most importantly, in my opinion they are the reason Christianity still exists. At a time where Islam was on the rise, and under the Turks how were brutally zealous, if they managed to break into Europe through Constantinople, they would have easily swept away any resistance the west could have mustered. All of Europe would have been Muslim, and that would have changed a whole lot through the ages. BUT as it is, Constantinople stood and Christianity is still going strong. Now tell me that Persia has a greater influence.

Most of the Byzantine culture can easily be attributed to the Romans, and so Null and Void, though it is a very grey line. Therefore I didn't include things like the law code, and road system for the Byzantines.

"I f we can't decide militarily (even though I'm still not exactly sure why the Persians are just as good"
Better actually, because Persia could stabilize the areas it conquered. Byzantines could get footholds but would get kicked out.

OK, but lets compare enemies

we keep coming back to the fact that Constantinople held out longer than the Persians against the Turks.

Cyrus was a great general, I agree, but the Persian soldier has nothing on the Byzantium soldier. AND the Byzantium war machines were also extremely innovative and effective. Plus there use of greek fire was very effective

"But most importantly, in my opinion they are the reason Christianity still exists."
Okay no I highly disagree. They're the reason Christianity made it to Russia. They didn't achieve much in Europe, the bulk of where Christianity grew. This achievement goes to Theodosius, who helped popularize (which had already been the Roman state religion, including the persecution of pagans) and unify the idea of Christianity. And by definition of entry, the Byzantines became an empire after Theodosius died.

"we keep coming back to the fact that Constantinople held out longer than the Persians against the Turks"
To be fair, the Byzantines couldn't capture it either. It helps to be gifted your capital on a silver platter by another empire.

no, I'm, saying if they didn't stop the Islamic Turks from invading Europe, than Europe would be Muslim, not Christian. I didn't say they were pivotal in the spread of Christianity

"It helps to be gifted your capital on a silver platter" that's beside the point. It is still part of their Empire and they defended those walls very well

(though they did spread Christianity to Eastern Europe and Russia)

But the Byzantines still fell to the Ottoman Muslims, and Muslims still made it to Europe. The Battle of Tours is far more significant in considering the religion of Europe.

Yes but by the time Constantinople fell, Western Europe had a thousand years to put itself back together.

(but yes I agree the Battle of Tours is probably more significant)

There is also the small matter of me always being right, if you need further convincing...

##VOTE BYZANTIUM

Just in case my earlier vote wasn't counted:

##VOTE Byzantines

I don't like that name tbh. They considered themselves Romans, not Byzantines, so the moniker Eastern Romans is better to me.

I mean, this contest doesn't really matter. Whoever loses here will still win the 3-way pretty handily, imo.

Byzantines were the reason the *Arabs*, not the Turks, didn't conquer Europe. They stopped the Sassanid Persians from taking the city in several sieges, their Avar allies in 626, and later the Arabs and so on.

This is pretty much fact. Every enemy of the Byzantines ran rampant throughout Anatolia, sacking cities, destroying armies, etc. Only to be stopped at the walls of Constantinople. The walls, moreso than the armies, are the reason the empire survived, and Constantinople wasn't sacked like Rome.

When were the walls built? Mostly in Roman times. First under Constantine, then Septimus Severus. The last great expansion of the walls (minor improvements were made to the fortifications throughout history) were the Theodosian Walls, which were started in 408, just 13 years after the date given for the "founding" of this Empire. So I very much would like to attribute the survival of the Byzantines to the Romans as well, since everyone who built those walls was born a Roman citizen.

And Tours was equal in significance, but not greater, than the Byzantines' defense. I won't short them too much. They absolutely are the reason much of Europe isn't Muslim today. There was no organized kingdom that could've opposed the Arabs, outside the Franks (and later Holy Roman Empire)

"I don't like that name tbh. They considered themselves Romans, not Byzantines, so the moniker Eastern Romans is better to me"
Another point in itself. The Byzantines were an attempt at continuation of a fallen empire. There were given glory on a pedestal. The Romans had already given them culture, military tactics, technology, the road system, etc. so many of their some of their achievements are pretty lackluster. Meanwhile the Persians started from humble beginnings and built everything up.

They borrowed most of their culture from others as well. About the only thing revolutionary about the Persians was Cyrus the Great and his tolerance.

C C C C

East empire wasnt "given" almost anything, most of the accomplishments were made or at least first imagined on the soil and by the people of the Eastern Roman Empire. Constantinople held knowledge for Europe for one thousand years.

##VOTE BYZANTIUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Other than their original land, capital, language (not from the Romans, but still), religion, politics, and so forth. They weren't even 100% independent until people Zeno sent over to get the politics of the West more submissive to him, which resulted in the West being so muffled up the western empire completely fell and the Goths started to do their own thing in Italy.

It was already unstable, but the Byzantines failed to help despite them being technically part of the same empire.

Final: BYZ 5 v PER 3
BYZ progresses to GC3 ad PER progresses to GC4
Next: Athens (ATH) v Lapita (LAP)

Please do some research on Lapita if you have no idea who they were. This match may be skewed as Athens has common cultural recognition. for this reason while debate is open; I will not open voting until i wake up.

I am so happy.