*Scythian

Without Greeks, such as in Athens, Romans wouldn't ever have adopted Christianity :)

"I have completely eviscerated Athens?"

lolwut

@Goldfinger: No, sorry, that was not the criteria of this tournament. The criteria was for the culture to have been picked before 400AD. Thus, Byzantine's entire history must be considered.

Athens, (sorry!) is not a very good empire. It's empire was a D list empire. It barely lasted one hundred years. Persia, actually, was slightly better. I would say a C list empire. I don't believe I ever called it a D list empire. If I did then I would like to amend that to a "C" list empire.

Also, I agree I don't think we can have an intellectual argument. Anyone who votes and thinks Athens is a greater empire than the Byzantine Empire is clearly someone who has either been brainwashed by 9th grade Greco-Roman western civ or someone willing to ignore an entire millennia of history to satisfy their own agenda. This should not even be a contest. There is no comparison.

Actually, I just remembered something else Athens did.

Founded Byzantium. Who was their vassal during the Peloponnesian Wars

"lolwut"

@Ghug: Your intellectual prowess amaze me.

"Founded Byzantium. Who was their vassal during the Peloponnesian Wars"

-Unfortunately that was prior to 395 AD and thus not part of this contest. Those are the rules.

ND - your version of "great" is deliberately skewed to suite the Byzantines main strong points - they were big both in size and population, and lasted a very long time.

I fully expect you to vote for Han China over the Byzantines, or I will call you a hypocrite.

"-Unfortunately that was prior to 395 AD and thus not part of this contest. Those are the rules."
Actually, that's literally the opposite of the rules.

The only real argument in favor of Athens is the philosophical one. However I argue that at a MINIMUM the Byzantine's legal and religious influence over the MODERN world draw that if not dwarf Athens.

I mean, I'd vote Han China over the Byzantines...

Actually, that's literally the opposite of the rules.

-Negative the Byzantine Empire as defined by this tournament started in 395AD and ended in 1453AD.

"Byzantine's legal and religious influence over the MODERN world draw that if not dwarf Athens."
Except nah, Roman law more than Byzantine law impacted the world at large, and even that was thrown out the window in Europe in the modern era thanks to the all-great Napoleon. And Christianity wouldn't have been around if the Athenians didn't help popularize it in Greece in the first place (enter long politico-religious history of Christianity in Rome).

"-Negative the Byzantine Empire as defined by this tournament started in 395AD and ended in 1453AD."
That was because you said you considered them to have been created at the death of Theodosius. Events prior to the year 400 AD are considered ancient by the tournament.

@TrPrado: Nope it was Justinian's legal advances.

The GM accepted the Byzantine Empire for this tournament. Thus the entire length of the empire must be considered. Sorry if that upsets you or destroys your silly notions that Athens was a greater empire, but those are the rules.

bias, bias, bias

The Athenian people are really biased. It's silly and strange to see so many people try to fit something into their little agenda but whatever I know I am right. That's all that matters to me.

I don't see a comparison. The Byzantines were clearly a more successful and impactful empire in their time (which was 10x longer) and were responsible for shaping the history of Europe and its religions for the modern world.

No Byzantines means Muslim Europe and likely a lot less learning.

Etruscans founded Rome. You don't see people trying to argue that Etruscans were superior to the Romans.

as an empire, ND, you are completely right. Athens never maintained an Empire, and as I have made clear, the Byzantines did a very impressive job of maintaining their against so many enemies.
however I'd like to address your point on religion.

Athens is more religiously influential, not because of their pagan mythology, but because of Aristotle and Plato. These two are what Christology is built upon. The Great Schism was the result, as I'm sure you know, of the "filioque clause" in the Nicaen Creed. This Creed was written to disprove Arianism the most dangerous heresy to every threaten Christianity. This heresy, and many others, including, but not limited to, Manichaeism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism, all come into being over disagreements as to the exact nature of the natures of Jesus Christ. I encourage you to look into their teachings, and the teachings of the Catholics on this matter, because you will begin to see themes to the heresies. It harkens back to the classic Plato and Aristotle argument over souls. Arians took a more platonic view, whereas Catholics took a more Aristotle view.

As you can see the Great Schism is because of Athenian philosophies.

As an empire, not necessarily. But this isn't an empires tournament, it's a tournament of civilizations. I think the innovations and beginnings of a civilization is very important to consider when you're looking at the ancient era. And the Byzantines aren't really that. They had some cool architecture, and they had military achievements, but at the same time most of their work feels pretty derivative. Politically their biggest innovation was allowing women to reign over the empire, which was a step away from Roman classics, but it's also not necessarily much. Meanwhile, the Athenians ALSO had considerable architecture, as well as one of the most notable political innovations of history: democracy. While modern civilization may take more from the Roman Republic in terms of politics, the development of a representative or democratic form of governance during the ancient era, which was dominated by kings and emperors, is pretty much the peak of political innovation.

Also Justinian's codex was a compilation of Roman Law (in other words NOT Byzantine law) and thanks to him, we now know much about Roman law that would have otherwise been destroyed. But it comes back to the point that the Byzantines preserved, and the Athenians innovated. Both are important, and innovation more so.

I don't think you can chalk up the Great Schism so simply as a result of Athenian philosophies and the practical effects of two major world defining religious systems to Athenian philosophies. This was shaped and carried out by the religious leaders of the time (the West and East of Constantinople). The millions (billions) of believers over the course of history and the continued billions that worship these two religious systems have their roots in Rome and Constantinople respectively. I argue that this defining moment is key to Byzantine-Medieval Rome's history and thus should be considered as an important crux of the history of the Byzantine Empire not Athens.

Also, no, Justinian's codex and later improvements/changes to it were not solely based on ancient Roman law. Byzantine law, improvements, and changes were also involved. It wasn't solely ancient Roman law. It was also Byzantine law. They shaped it and crafted it and put it into effect. It was as much their own as their predecessors and that too impacted the world.

Christianity+Aristotle+Roman law/language/government/literature= Western civilization.

"It was also Byzantine law."
Which was, primarily, Roman law.

I think the Great Schism is less of a deal then people think. The actually theological differences between the two are surprisingly trivial.

@ND OK fine, Justinian improved Roman law some, but as a whole my point still stands.

I've spoken on this. If you want to dispute it find a credible source that says that all of Byzantine law until 1453 was based on Roman law made before 395AD. You can't do it because you are wrong.